The Contribution of Published Sustainability Indexes to the
Construction of Practical Useful Metrics for Comparing
Strengths and Weaknesses for Achieving Sustainability Among
Countries
By
Efthymios Nikolopoulos
MSc in Accounting and Finance
London School of Economics, 2005
SUBMITTED TO THE MIT SLOAN SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN MANAGEMENT STUDIES
AT THE
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
MASSACHUETS
Wi
OF TECHNOLOGY
JU N 1 8 2014
JUNE 2014
©2014 Efthymios Nikolopoulos. All Rights Reserved.
LIUBRA-RIES---
The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to
distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in
whole or in part in any medium now known or hereafter created.
Signature redacted
Signature of Author:
u oMIT Sloan School of Management
May 9, 2014
Signature redacted
Certified By:
Nicholas Alshford
Professor of Technology and Policy, School of Engineering, MIT
I Thesis Supervisor
'
Signature redacted
Read By:
Assistant Professor, School of 1(44 A~ai
Accepted By:
Ralph Hall
International Affairs, Virginia Tech
Thesis Reader
Signature redactedMichael A. Cusumano
SMR Distinguished Professor of Management
Program Director, M.S. in Management Studies Program
MIT Sloan School of Management
E
The Contribution of Published Sustainability Indexes to the
Construction of Practical Useful Metrics for Comparing
Strengths and Weaknesses for Achieving Sustainability Among
Countries
By
Efthymios Nikolopoulos
Submitted to the MIT Sloan School of Management on May 9, 2014 in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of
Science in Management Studies
ABSTRACT
The thesis focuses on the evaluation of available national sustainability indexes, which measure
and compare the performance of countries on various elements of sustainability. The first part
presents an overview of the methodology used in existing published sustainability indexes. In
addition, the elements that comprise an "ideal" multi-faceted index of sustainability are
identified and comparisons with the existing indexes are made. In addition, the importance of
two enablers is highlighted: The Potential for Innovation, and Ethical Concerns and Governance,
which affect the long-term performance of all elements of sustainable development. In addition,
results from a review of components of the main categories of the index and scores for
illustrative countries are presented. Finally a series of potential improvements to the existing Key
Performance Indicators (KPIs) are presented in addition to proposals for future research in order
to further improve the proposed sustainability index.
Thesis Supervisor: Nicholas Ashford
Title: Professor of Technology and Policy, School of Engineering, MIT
2
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank everyone who helped me during this year.
Particularly, I would like to express my gratitude to both my supervisor Professor Ashford and
my reader Professor Hall for their guidance, advice and encouragement who have given to me
during my work on this thesis.
Furthermore, I would like to thank Professor Cusumano, Mr. Chanh Phan and Mrs. Julia
Sargeaunt because their advice and help were crucial for my success during this year.
In addition I would like to thank both George and Marie Vergottis Foundation and the MIT
Office of the Dean for the Graduate Education for the honor to offer me the George and Marie
Vergottis Fellowship. Without this financial assistance it would not have been possible to study
at MIT Sloan School of Management.
Moreover, I would like to particularly thank Professor Serafeim for his help and support.
Without his encouragement many of my achievements would have been impossible.
Also, I would like to thank all my friends and classmates for all their support.
Last, and by no means least, I would like to thank my parents and my brothers because nothing
of what I have achieved all these years would have been possible without their help, love and
support.
3
Table of Contents
1. In trod u ctio n .................................................................................................................................
6
1.1 Sustainable Development definition.................................................................................
6
1.2 Current vs. sustainable policy agendas .............................................................................
8
1.3 Government activity areas confronting sustainable development ..................................
2. Indexes of Sustainable Development....................................................................................
10
12
2 .1 O verv iew .............................................................................................................................
12
2.2 BCG Sustainable Economic Development Assessment (SEDA) ...................
12
2.3 Sustainability Adjusted Global Competitiveness Index .................................................
15
2.4 FEEM Sustainability Index Approach ................................................................................
17
2.5 Sustainable Society index- SSI........................................................................................
19
2.6 Environmental Performance Index (EPI).........................................................................
21
2.7 EIRIS Country Sustainability Ratings ............................................................................
22
2.8 Human Development Index ............................................................................................
23
2.9 OECD Better Life Index ................................................................................................
24
2.10 INCRA Country Ratings ..............................................................................................
25
2.11 Social Progress Index ........................................................................................................
26
2.12 Happy Planet Index (HPI)............................................................................................
27
3. Proposed framework for a sustainability index ....................................................................
29
3.1 New Framework for Sustainable Development ..............................................................
29
3.2 Comparison of proposed framework vs. current approaches...........................................
34
3.2.1 BCG Sustainable Economic Development Assessment (SEDA) ...............
35
3.2.2 Sustainability Adjusted Global Competitiveness Index ..........................................
36
3.2.3 FEEM Sustainability Index Approach .........................................................................
37
3.2.3 Sustainable Society index- SSI.................................................................................
37
3.2.4 Environmental Performance Index (EPI)................................................................
38
3.2.5 Human Development Index .....................................................................................
38
3.2.6 OECD Better Life Index .........................................................................................
38
3.2.7 INCRA Country Ratings ..........................................................................................
39
3.2.8 Social Progress Index..............................................................................................
39
3.2.9 Happy Planet Index (HPI)........................................................................................
39
3.2.10 The new proposed Framework...............................................................................
40
4
4. The Proposed Framework for Sustainable Development- Category Results.........................
42
4.1 Resource Depletion.............................................................................................................
42
4.2 Biodiversity/Ecosystem s.................................................................................................
44
4.3 Toxic Pollution....................................................................................................................
46
4.4 Clim ate Change...................................................................................................................
47
4.5 Environm ental Justice.........................................................................................................
49
4.6 Rights and Justice ...............................................................................................................
51
4.7 Peace and Security ..............................................................................................................
53
4.8 Health..................................................................................................................................
55
4.9 Education.....e....................
57
........................................................................
4.10 Employm ent ................................................................................................................
59
4.11 Economic Equality and Purchasing Power ....................................................
61
4.12 Competitiveness ...................... ...........................................................
63
4.13 Ethical Concerns and Governance .................................................................................
65
4.14 Potential for Innovation ................................................................................................
67
5. Illustrative Scores for the countries .....................................................................................
70
5.1 U SA Scores.........................................................................................................................
70
5.2 Norway Scores res..............................................................................................................
71
5.3 Switzerland Scores ..............................................................................................................
72
5.4 Sweden Scores......................................................................................................................
73
5.5 Germ any Scores ..................................................................................................................
74
5.6 Greece Scores.
.............................................................................................................
75
5.7 Poland Scores
r...
es..........................................................................................................
76
5.8 Russia Scores nn ..ati...and.Ethi.a..
C... erns........................................................
77
5.9 South Korea Scores
an
.m
.. t. sf...........................................................................
78
5.10 South Africa Scores ................. ............................................................
79
5.11 Priority for Innovation and Ethical Concerns and Governance..............................
80
6. Conclusion ............................................................................................
82
6.1 Final remarks and implications for Government policy .......................................
82
6.2 Lim itations of the study and Implications for future research ........................................
83
References.....................................................................................................................................
85
Appendix .......................................................................................................................................
89
5
1. Introduction
1.1 Sustainable Development definition
The concept of sustainable development was defined in the beginning of 1990s; however initial
discussions of sustainable development "principles" can be identified from the 1960s. Until then
the prevailing opinion was that economic growth gains would outweigh any potential
environmental or health costs (Ashford and Hall 2011). Carson (1962) produced the first study to
identify potential dangers from the use of the pesticide DDT, which was being used by chemical
companies and industrial agriculture. During subsequent years, as a result of increased public
concern (Hardin, 1968) and environmental disasters (Santa Barbara oil spill and the oil fire on
the Cuyahoga River), the US government passed laws for environmental, health and safety
regulations (National Environmental Policy Act - NEPA). In 1972, during the UN Human
Environment Conference, it was recognized for first time that an environmental policy should be
established at a national level. During the 1980s developing countries started facing a paradox
since: the desired economic growth they desired would damage the environment on which they
relied (UNEP 1982c, Ashford and Hall 2011). This contradiction led to the concept of
sustainable development - i.e., that economic growth and environmental protection can advance
in unison.
There are many definitions for the meaning of sustainability and sustainable development. An
interesting approach is the definition of Solow (1993) who states that sustainable development
"is an obligation to conduct ourselves so that we leave to the future the option or the capacity to
be as well off as we are". Moreover, important is the definition of Pronk and ul Haq (1992):
"Economic Growth that provides fairness and opportunity for all the world's people, not just the
privileged few, without further destroying the world's finite natural resources and carrying
6
capacity". The most widely accepted definition was the one of World Commission on
Environment and Development (1987, p.43): "Sustainable development is development that
meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts: a) the concept of 'needs', in particular
the essential needs of the world's poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and b) the
idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the
environment's ability to meet present and future needs".
It is important to identify the main social and environmental challenges that are often associated
with the unsustainable industrial state (Ashford and Hall 2011). The first challenge is related
with the need to provide society with adequate and essential high-quality goods and services
(e.g., food, health, security, etc). The second challenge refers to the ecosystem integrity and the
loss of biodiversity and the indirect effects these have on human health and well-being (Carson
1962, Solomon and Schettler 1999, Ashford and Hall 2011).The third challenge refers to the
resource depletion and the world's finite resources and energy supplies and asks the question of
whether there are sufficient resources to fuel the economy in its current form (Ayres 1978,
Meadows, Meadows, et al. 1972, Ashford and Hall 2011). The fourth challenge refers to the
toxic pollution and on the impact that has directly on human health and on the health of other
species (Ashford and Miller 1998, Baskin, Himes et al. 2001, Mc Cally 1999). The fifth
challenge refers to the climate change as a result of the greenhouse gases from anthropocentric
sources (International Climate Change Task Force 2005; Schmidheiny 1992). The last four
challenges have consequences for environmental justice (Ashford and Hall 2011). Toxic
pollution and climate change are of economic and social concern associated with employment,
wages and economic inequality. It should be stated that the burden of the environmental
7
problems are felt unequally among nations and generations leading to concerns regarding the
effectiveness of the international sustainable policy agendas and efforts. Finally additional
challenges relate to meaningful employment with adequate purchasing power and to
maldistributions of wealth and income.
1.2 Currentvs. sustainable policy agendas
Although often sustainable development is being based on the three economic, environment and
social pillars, Ashford and Hall (2011) argue that the competitiveness, the environment and
employment are the operationally important dimensions of sustainability (Figure 1). Moreover
they argue that these three dimensions drive sustainable development and could result in
avoiding tradeoffs (e.g., between environmental improvements and jobs) which could be the case
if an environmental approach alone was implemented. Finally, they highlight the importance of
technological change and globalization (trade) as drivers of change within and between the three
sustainability dimensions.
Environmen
Technological
change
&
globalization
(trad)
Economy
Work
Source: Ashford and Hall 2011
Figure 1: Technological change and globalization as drivers of change within and between
three operationally-important dimensions of Sustainability
8
Furthermore, it is important to compare the current agendas vs. the sustainable policy agendas
which should be adopted as a policy design by the governments. The current agendas, as
illustrated also in Figure 2, could be considered as: a) improve profit and market share by
improving efficiency in current technologies or cutting costs, b) control pollution, make simple
substitutions to products and find new energy sources, c) ensure an adequate supply of skilled
labor and provide healthier workplaces. These strategies are not proactive vis-a-vis technological
change and are usually not coordinated and certainly not integrated (Ashford and Hall 2011).
However, in order to improve the current situation it is necessary to adopt a sustainable agenda
which will focus on: a) technological changes which will change the way goods and services are
provided, b) decreased use of energy and prevention of pollution through system changes, c)
development of sociotechnical systems that enhance the meaningful and rewarding employment
through integration (and not coordination) of policy design and implementation (Ashford and
Hall 2011).
Competitiveness
AGENDA
urrent
Environment
(Economic
Developement)
Employment
Reduce worker hazards
Control Pollution
Improve performance
and
efficencyMaintain
dialogue with
teffiency
Make simple substitutions
workers on working
or changes to products and
conditions and terms of
Cut
processes
employment
costs
Conserve energy and
emplymet
Ensure supply of adequately
resources; find new
enery sorcestrained people
energy sources
Change the nature of
meeting market needs
Prevent pollution
through radical or
through system changes
disrupting
Innovation
Radical improvement in
human-technology
interfaces (a systems
change)
Transition towards
Sustanableproduct services
transformation
Design environmentally
sudprocts ad
Designinherently safe
products and processes
resource and
energy dependence
Create meaningful and
rewarding jobs
Source: Ashford and Hall 2011
Figure 2: Comparison of current and sustainable policy agendas
9
1.3 Government activity areas confronting sustainable development
The approach of Ashford and Hall (2011) provides a comprehensive framework (Figure 3)
identifying the challenges - environmental
development
-
confronting
sustainable
protection, social development and economic
development.
The
main
challenges
confronting
sustainable development according to Ashford and Hall (2011) are: Resource Depletion,
Biodiversity, Toxic pollution, Climate change, Environmental Justice, Peace and Security,
Economic Inequality Employment and Purchasing Power and Competitiveness. The arrows
around the
circle
represent the
related
challenges
to
environmental
protection,
social
development and economic development. The need for integrated decision making is also
illustrated uniquely by the inclusion of the several US federal activity government areas in the
framework of the major challenges for sustainable development. It is critical to identify that there
is no hierarchy to the activity areas shown (the role of all government authorities is crucial). The
framework of Ashford and Hall (2011) illustrates that single-purpose policies (e.g., only for
climate change) will be ineffective since they have the risk of further worsening the problems in
other areas. Thus the integration of the government decision making to address environmental,
social and economic problems is required in order to move towards sustainable development.
Rodrik (2007) argues that challenges for economic and social development require nations to
engage in a process of "self discovery". Sustainability indexes could enhance that discovery
processes if properly constructed.
10
(effective and Oftkolentouc
dalvery of goods aid
services)
Depleon
,,1urchaafsngcoyem
Power
RcOnOnDO
ToWi
peace
and
Cirnat
Change
$ecrIty
Key:.
Government activity areas
Challenges confrorting
sustainable development
Source: Ashford and Hall 2011
Figure 3: Government activity areas and challenges confronting sustainable development
11
2. Indexes of Sustainable Development
2.1 Overview
The indicators of sustainability should be developed in order to take into account the concerns of
environmental protection, economic and social development and at the same time to provide to
government officials a tool for policy choices and policy design. According to Cash et al. (2003),
there are three criteria that need to be met (Holden 2013): a) Salience (do the indicators refer to
the questions deemed relevant by the policy actor and adequately assess the policy stakes?), b)
Credibility (do policy actors view the indicators as robust?) and c) Legitimacy (are the indicators
configured
with
procedural
fairness
to
meet
political,
societal
and
ethical
standards?).Furthermore an interesting approach regarding main principles of how to measure
and assess progress toward sustainable development is the one provided by the International
Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) (Hardi and Zdan 1997), known as Bellagio
principles. The main areas of the Bellagio principles are: 1) Guiding vision and Goals, 2)
Holistic Perspective, 3)Essential elements, 4) Adequate scope, 5) Practical focus, 6) Openness,
7) Effective communication, 8) Broad Participation, 9) Ongoing assessment and 10) Institutional
Capacity. Having identified the importance of integrated government decision making, it is
important to examine the available sustainable development indexes (or other main indexes
including characteristics of sustainable development) which are the main tools in order to
provide awareness to the people and thorough information to the government authorities in order
to design a successful policy.
2.2 BCG Sustainable Economic Development Assessment (SEDA)
The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) launched its version of the BCG Sustainable Economic
Development Assessment (SEDA) Framework in 2012 (Beal, Rueda-Sabater, et al. 2012) in
12
order to support them while providing advices to governments on successful long-term
development strategies. SEDA, according to BCG, is an approach (Figure 4) to systematically
assess and compare the socio-economic development or level of well-being in 150 nations.
SEDA has also a time element (Figure 5) in order to identify the performance during the last
five years (Recent Progress), the current performance (Current level) and also identify which
nations are much better positioned in order to sustain their progress in their future (Long-term
Sustainability). The initial version of the framework had 10 dimensions (Income, Economic
Stability, Employment, Income Equality, Civil Society, Governance, Education, Health,
Environment and Infrastructure) and 51 different indicators used in total (either for recent
progress, current or long-term sustainability assessment), while 40 of them were used for the
construction of the current level index. In 2014, BCG published an updated report (Beal and
Rueda-Sabater, 2014) and increased the total number of indicators to 54 and respectively to 40
the indicators of the current level index.
Wealth (GDP per capita)
sanittmn
Watel; tomsporta I*n
and commnunications
Inllwon W the volt
Of GoP growth
I
The quait of the envionnt
and policis aimted at
w *o
lm~rovem nt and
Aomsto health can and
.....
moftalty and morbidty rates
Employment and
\
/
ion
pfultgho
WtheW
I
Educaioal uality and access-
uw~ qu~iRy
I U1~ ~I~~IWI~
2ntegroup coheson civc CtiisM,
and under equality
as well as acctabilit
Mstabiliand civi freedom
Source: Beal, Rueda-Sabater, et al. (2012).
Figure 4: BCG Sustainable Economic Development Assessment Framework
13
progress
Past five years
Has the levelof
socioeconomic
development been
irnprovng relative to
oher countries?
Present
What is each
country's current level
V socioeconomic
development?
Next generation
Are the key sustainability
factors in place to sustain
future improvement in
socioeconomic development?
Recent p- ras
measures t
duhtg In indicators
owfve years.
Current level measures
Long-term sustainability
the most recent
indicators.
measures the key factors
required to enable progress
over the next generation.
Source: Beal, Rueda-Sabater, et al. (2012).
Assesses Development across Three Time Horizons
SEDA
Figure 5:
An interesting approach of BCG is the calculation of both the wealth to well-being coefficient
(country's current level SEDA score with the score it would be expected given its per capita
GDP) and the growth to well-being coefficient (country's recent progress SEDA score with the
score that would be expected given the per capita GDP growth rate) (Figure 6). According to
SEDA findings countries with the highest GDP are not necessarily the best in converting their
wealth to well-being for their citizens. Also other countries (e.g., developing) are more
successful in translating the recent GDP growth of the last years to increased well-being for their
citizens (as measured by SEDA score).
14
Owns. in GOPowrcpta. MS6-3ftt man rceg*sPrftv SDA OCmOO
W9M~t0nwn4~1mwt
aO
13)
U
43
40*
OD
to
as
0
43
0A
41
'3
00,
a's
0
Oft"M
SAW
3000
~
SaUtO
00 "d
6~*
d ta=
A"
I("a~t
A"AN
MO Arne0ra
PWWA.1
Source: Beal, Rueda-Sabater, et al. (2012).
Figure 6: Wealth to well-being and Growth to well-being coefficients
2.3 Sustainability Adjusted Global Competitiveness Index
The World Economic Forum has created a framework which aims to create a "common ground
to develop policies that balance economic prosperity with social inclusion and environmental
stewardship" (World Economic Forum 2013, p. 61). The framework is based on the Global
Competitiveness Index (Appendix- Figure Al) and is adjusted by social and environmental
factors. The Global Competitiveness Index is based on 12
main pillars (Institutions,
Infrastructure, Macroeconomic Environment, Health and Basic Education, Higher Education and
Training, Goods Market Efficiency, Labor Market Efficiency, Financial Market Development,
Technological Readiness, Market Size, Business Sophistication and Innovation) and covers 148
countries.
The sustainability adjusted Global Competitiveness Index is derived after the calculation of
Social and Environmental pillars which are used as adjustment coefficients with a range from 0.8
to 1.2 (Figure 7). The adjusted index covers 121 countries (less than the 148 of GCI due to data
15
limitations) and uses 19 extra indicators (Appendix- Figure A2). Social pillar based on 9
indicators and Environmental pillar based on 10 indicators). The World Economic Forum
1.
provides scores and rankings for each pillar (social and environmental) and for total
sustainability adjusted global competitiveness index in order for stakeholders to identify the
area/reasons of over/underperformance.
Source: World Economic Forum (2013).
Figure 7: Sustainability Adjusted Global Competitiveness Index
16
Due to its methodological approach, the sustainability adjusted Global Competitiveness Index
has competitiveness as its main assessment criteria (Figure 8). Thus, by definition the weights of
competitiveness, social and environmental pillars are not equal which results in favoring
countries with overperformance in the area of competitiveness.
Source: World Economic Forum (2013).
Figure 8: Country performance on the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) and the
components of the sustainability-adjusted GCI
2.4 FEEM Sustainability Index Approach
Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM) has created the FEEM sustainability index in order to
provide an indication of the sustainability of social, environmental and economic development.
The index is comprised (Figure 9) by 23 indicators related to Economic (Growth drivers,
Exposure, GDP p.c.), Society (Well Being, Transparency, Vulnerability) and Environmental
(Pressure, Natural Endowment, Energy and Resources) dimensions. The weights per each
17
element are derived based on a questionnaire (participating experts, stakeholders and decision
makers) that elicits individual preferences on the specific performance of each sustainability
indicator and their coalitions. However, what is unique is that it is based on a methodology that
takes into account the weighted average; in accordance with the incoherence index of each
respondent's preferences. Thus, the more a respondent turns out to be incoherent in a particular
node the less his preferences will be weighted with respect to the others (Eboli 2013). Based on
this approach the weights for the three main pillars are determined to be: Society 0.386,
Environment 0.357 and Economy 0.257.The Sustainability index of FEEM in addition to the
current state of sustainable development, also has a projection (until 2030) per country about the
future development (Figure 10). The scenario building of the projection is based on both
exogenous (e.g., GDP, public debt, population, energy prices, water availability, etc.) and
endogenous (e.g., R&D, investment, energy access/efficiency, water use, emissions, etc.) factors.
Source: Eboli (2013).
Figure 9: FEEM Sustainability Index Structure
18
0,
EUO
UNK N
20203
z
:i 0
B~1~s<
-
___
_
DEVELOPED
__
__
__
1
___
____
____
COUNTRIES
_
_
Z
0,35
0.36
037
0.8
0.39
0,41
04
04
0A43
0.44
0.45
CA
047
0,48
.49
0.
FEEM SI
Source: Eboli (2013).
Figure 10: FEEM Reference Scenario
Although the approach of FEEM is innovative (both in terms of weights and scenario building);
it should be emphasized that the focus of the projections should not be on its accuracy but rather
on the awareness that can be achieved through the process of making the estimations. Also, as in
all similar cases, the validity of the weights is dependent on the preferences of the evaluators.
Furthermore, the methodology used might also result in further discounting the value of the
opinion of outliers, thus taking even less into account the different opinions.
2.5 Sustainable Society index- SSI
The Sustainable Society Index (SSI) was launched in 2006 and indicates whether the world is
becoming more sustainable using three dimensions: human wellbeing, environmental well-being
and economic well-being. The SSI comprises of 21 indicators (Figure 11) and has results for 151
countries. SSI does not use the arithmetic average; instead it uses the geometric average (in order
to reduce the compensation of low scores in one indicator with high scores in another one).
19
Furthermore, SSI provides a world SSI Score (Figure 12), which is weighted for population size.
Finally, it should be noted that according to SSI "More emphasis should be given to the scores of
the three wellbeing dimensions than to the overall score SSI" (Van de Kerk and Manuel 2012,
p.22).
SCat.gr~dm
21 Wfiutoir
TransitonI
19 Gross Domestic Product
20. Empyment
Economy
21. Puic Debt
Source: Van de Kerk and Manuel (2012).
Figure 11: Sustainable Society index (SSI) Framework
20
sustainae Society lnd
wsMaaSto D"
ubhcoeMt
n
&Wkmqnm
2D12 -WNWld
samSsA0M
I
I
\
GP OMO msaduct
"a" Lyife
(2012).r
ourcae: Vd...n
Fe:Ausai
oenusmsenay
et
l
m,
x2
a R
- Wld
amky
2
al m
nnvn
amnce IEndrx(EPI)
fmewealeftWolnsme'
n~n
i
abdMSKny I& uaky
Source: Van de Kerk and Manuel (2012).
Figure 12: Sustainable Society index 2012- World Results
2.6 Environmental Performance Index (EPI)
The Environmental Performance Index (EPI) provides a way to assess the global
community's performance over time with respect to established environmental policy goals. The
EPI ranks 132 countries and uses ten policy categories: Environmental Health, Water, Air
pollution (effects on human health, Air pollution (ecosystem effects), Water Resources
(ecosystem effects), Biodiversity and Habitat, Forests, Fisheries, Agriculture and Climate
change. In order to construct the results for these categories, 22 performance indicators are being
used (Figure 13). In the latest version of EPI it was introduced also the Pilot Trend
Environmental Performance Index (Trend EPI) which ranks countries on the change in their
environmental performance of the last decade (EPI 2012). The Trend EPI illustrates which
countries are improving their performance over time and thus makes it feasible to correlate these
results with the efficacy of the government policies the respective years.
21
INDICATORS
Chfld Monifty
POLICY CATEGORIES
OBJECTIVES
{
A~MW60I10 *W
A *Qob
FffctRW
SO, 6P
PCS
15%1
3 YwY
4,M%1
438
~di4
IF:
2.63%1
Renewatle UW5Pty
Source: EPI (2012).
Figure 13: 2012 Environmental Performance Index Framework
The Environmental Performance Index, in contrast with the previously discussed indexes, is
focusing only on the environment element and does not take into account all the elements of
sustainable development. Thus, although it cannot be used alone in order to measure the
sustainable growth development of a country, it provides an adequate framework regarding the
environmental performance.
2.7 EIRIS Country Sustainability Ratings
EIRIS is a private company, provider of research into corporate environmental, social and
governance performance areas. EIRIS Country Sustainability Ratings cover 75 countries and
provide an assessment of how well countries are addressing the various environmental, social
and governance (ESG) risks they face. The target of the ratings is to enable investors to integrate
22
ESG issues into sovereign fixed income investments. EIRIS does not publish its rankings but
sells data/ad-hock indexes to its clients. The bases of the Sustainability rankings are
Environmental, Social, Governance and Ethical Screens indicators (Figure 14). The main reason
that EIRIS is being included into the current review (since the Country Sustainability Rankings
are not available publicly) is the fact that EIRIS highlights the ethical screens as an important
element of the sustainability ratings (which is not a clear element of the other indexes examined).
Furthermore, what is interesting is that EIRIS provides, according to the publicly available
information, normalized data to each country's GDP in order to avoid 'rich country bias'.
Environmental
Biodiversity
Climate change
C2 emissions (per capita
and per GDP)
Deforestation
Environmental protection
Endangered species
Fishing
Fertilizer use
Nuclear energy
Pollution
Recycling
Social
Bribery and corruption
CMiberties
Child labour
Child mortality
Gender inequality
Health expenditure
Human Dwelopment index
Human Rights
Income distribution
Labour standards
Goverance
Brbery and conupbon
Govamment
efecoveness
PcliticM rgh
Poiicalstabit
le of Jaw
Sanitation
Unemployment
waste
Water (usage and quality)
Source: EIRIS Country Sustainability Ratings (2012).
Figure 14: Examples of ESG and ethical indicators used to generate EIRIS Country
Sustainability Ratings
2.8 Human Development Index
The Human Development Index (HDI) is a composite index measuring average achievement in
three basic dimensions of human development-a long and healthy life, knowledge and a decent
standard of living (Human Development Report, 2013). The proxies used for these areas are life
expectancy at birth, the men years of schooling, the expected years of schooling and the Gross
23
National Income per capita (Figure 15). Due to the fact that the Human Development Index uses
only few indicators, it manages to cover 186 countries. The HDI is a simple index which
provides limited information regarding government policies, when used independently, but is an
important tool for global awareness in terms of progress in main areas of human development.
Reias mli K101 group
Hof
Uk 9xWtso"
at birth lyears)
Uin years
at schoemug
4yoars)
xUe
scheolse
(ears)
mers
Gross uatfoesi
11c10=
per capt
5PPP$)
21
Reglon
Arab States
0.652
71.0
6.0
10.6
East Asia and the Pacific
0.683
72.7
7.2
11.8
3,874
Europe and Central Asia
0.771
71.5
10.4
13.7
1 2.243
Latin America and the Caribbean
01.741
74.7
78
13.7
11,300
South Asia
0.558
65.2
47
10.2
3.343
SubSaharan Africa
0.475
54.9
4.7
9.3
2.010
Very high human development
0.905
80.1
11.5
16.3
T3,391
High human development
0.758
73.4
8.8
13.9
1 1.501
Medium human development
0.640
69.9
6.3
11.4
5,428
Low human development
0.466
59.1
4.2
8.5
1.633
World
0.694
70.1
7.5
11.6
1 0,184
3.317
Hof group
Nota: Data am weighted by popdation and calculaed based on HDI values for 187 contries PP Is purchasing power party.
Source: HDRO cakulations. See statistical table I for detaled data sources.
Source: Human Development Report (2013).
Figure 15: HDI and components, by region and HDI group, 2012
2.9 OECD Better Life Index
The OECD Better Life Index Tool has eleven dimensions (Health, Work-Life Balance,
Education and Skills, Social Connections, Civil Engagement and Governance, Environmental
Quality, Personal Security, Subjective Well-Being, Income and Wealth, Jobs and Housing) and
covers 36 countries. Better Life Index is an interactive online tool (Figure 16) that allows you to
the user to see how countries perform on topics that shape a better life. In contrast with the
previous sustainability indexes, there is no aggregate index across 11 dimensions. Through the
24
online interactive tool every user can select the importance that he puts in each dimension and
thus can obtain the ranking based on his personal preferences. The OECD asks the user to submit
his country and his gender and collects the preferences in order to be possible in the future to
build up a picture of what the citizens from across the world believe that shapes a good life.
Create Your
Better Life Index
Rate the topics according to their importance
to you
.yHousing
Income4
Ov
a
Education
4
ba
aronment
w
CivicEnngagemient
Health
4
O
Life Satisfaction
4
*0
Safety4
Work-Life Balance
4,
Source: http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org
Figure 16: Better Life Index Tool
2.10 INCRA Country Ratings
INCRA is an International Non-Profit Credit Rating Agency for sovereign risk. INCRA has
as a target "to produce sovereign ratings that are based on a comprehensive set of
macroeconomic indicators, which are quantitative by nature, as well as Forward Looking
Indicators (FLIs), which mirror the socioeconomic developments within a country and are
qualitative" (INCRA 2012, p.5). The INCRA (2012) report covers 5 countries (Brazil, France,
Germany, Italy and Japan). The importance of INCRA and the reason for the inclusion in the
current review of sustainability indexes is the fact that it is the first credit rating index that
25
includes, besides the typical financial KPIs, also socioeconomic indicators (Figure 17). The
inclusion of socioeconomic indicators is a significant step towards the adoption of Sustainable
Development indicators/indexes as main tools of monitoring progress of national development.
r
Macroeconomic
Indicators
d
r i
6.9
Economic Fundamentals
Public Sector
Fiscal Policy
Monetary Poligr
capital Marets
and Financial Risk
s
7
1ndex
External SectorZ
Source: INCRA (2012).
Figure 17: INCRA Country Rating Example
2.11 Social Progress Index
The Social Progress Index has as target to identify the dimensions of social and environmental
performance of societies. The Framework (Figure 18) of Social Progress Index focuses on three
main questions: a) Does a country provide for its people's most essential needs? b) Are the
building blocks in place for individuals and communities to enhance and sustain wellbeing? c) Is
there opportunity for all individuals to reach their full potential? In order to increase transparency
26
and replication, the Social Progress Index assessment covers 134 countries and utilizes only
publicly available indicators which are offered free to the public. Social progress index is the
most recent attempt to measure the social and environmental performance of societies and was
created by Michael Porter .
Sodal Progress Irindx
triddnandBasicMaeicll Cwe
aghts
SPenal
SAcceestaBmeicKrniledge,
Undeaourishment
Adult iteracy rate
Pdtscal dighus
Depth of food deflct
Primary school enrollment
Freedom of speech
Maternal momtaly rate
Lovmr seondary school evogmerd
Freedom of asseftdyassociation
Stilbirth rate
Upper secondary school enrolment
Freedom of movement
Child mortaliy rate
Gender parity In secondary enroilment
Private property rights
Deaths from infectious diseases
-
* Water mid S" daut
Mobiletelephone subscipfions
Freedom over life chotces
Access to piped water
fitermetusers
Freedom of religion
Rural vs urban access to eproved water source
Press Freedom
Acces to
Improved sanitaton feolitles
Shew
Acaeesto Infrrmastl
and Carnmunicadans
Index
^
Pemonal Freedom wid Ciae
Modem
severy hmiintrefficldng and chld martle
.& H%fthand Wfedn
Satbsfed demand for voraeoeption
Lffe expectancy
Corrupwrn
Toerance and kichaiaon
AvalabilIty of affordable housing
Non-comnunlable dheese deats between the cr
Acceass to electriciy
Obesitymrie
Wuen treated with respect
Ouality of eleclrty supply
Outdoor atr pgution attributable deaths
Tolenunmefbrimimgranis
indoor akr polutiortl
albutable deaths
suiide rate
Toieraroesfor lomosexuaa
a
Pesona
-Eeyasusta-ky
Saety
Dlictiminabon and violence agairst
Hon*cide rate,
GreenO se ga enselons
Rebigious tolerance
Level of vtolent crime
Water Wv#trwe al a percent of resources
Communty sdety net
Perceived csln*rnaty
Stdk#ersity and habitat
1
wtftse
Amoea to Advanoced Education
scihoong
PdOtioelterror
Years of tertary
Traffic deaths
Women's average years in adol
fthe amnrnenrt ofeducaion
inequalityn
Number of gioballyranked uneritles
Source:www.socialprogressimperative.org
Figure 18: Social Progress Index Structure
2.12 Happy Planet Index (HPI)
"The Happy Planet Index (HPI) is an efficiency measure which captures the degree to which
long and happy lives are achieved per unit of environmental impact" (Happy Planet Index 2012,
lhttp://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/opinion/were-not-no-
27
1-were-not-no-1.html?emc=etal
p. 19). The latest report was published in 2012 (the third time the index has been published) and
ranks 151 countries. As illustrated in Figure 19, the calculation of HPI is based on life
expectancy, experienced well-being and ecological footprint. The life expectancy data refer to
the number of years an infant is expected to live. The experienced well-being data are derived
from responses to the ladder of life question in the Gallup World Poll: "Please imagine a ladder
with steps numbered from zero at the bottom to 10 at the top. Suppose we say that the top of the
ladder represents the best possible life for you and the bottom of the ladder represents the worst
possible life for you. On which step of the ladder would you say you personally feel you stand at
this time, assuming that the higher the step the better you feel about your life, and the lower the
step the worse you feel about it? Which step comes closest to the way you feel?" (Happy Planet
Index 2012, p. 19). Finally for the ecological footprint are used data from the 2011 Edition of the
Global Footprint Networks National Footprint accounts (Happy Planet Index 2012). It should be
stated that the calculation of the HPI formula takes place in two stages in order to assure that the
higher variation of Ecological Footprint does not dominate the entire index (also statistical
adjustments are applied to moderate the degree of variation in the individual components)
(Happy Planet Index 2012).
ppy Plnex
Experienced ell-being x Lfe expectancy
Ecological Footprint
Source: Happy Planet Index (2012).
Figure 19: Happy Planet Index Calculation Approach
28
3. Proposed framework for a sustainability index
The previous review of several national indexes of sustainability reveals a wide range of
approaches for measuring sustainable development. Furthermore, although many of them have
innovative approaches, at the same time they face significant limitations in providing insights
that adequately cover all the areas that affect sustainable development. A new framework will be
presented in this section that is adapted from the Ashford and Hall (2011). The framework is
designed to better measuring progress towards a more sustainable development.
3.1 New Framework for Sustainable Development
2
The proposed framework (Figure 20) identifies three main pillars (Environmental Protection,
Employment and Other Social Concerns and Economic Development) and two main enablers
(Ethical Concerns and Governance and Potential for innovation) as crucial factors in order to
assess the current state of sustainable development. The three pillars are comprised of 12 main
categories and all of them are interconnected; thus, the performance in one category of each
pillar could affect directly or indirectly, positively or negatively, the performance (usually in the
medium-long term) of one of the other categories (e.g., an increase in the purchasing power
could result to increased resource depletion or toxic pollution).
The performance of the enablers (Potential for innovation or Ethical concerns and governance)
affects the medium-long term performance of all categories and this is the reason that these
should not be handled as separate categories in the pillars, but instead considered as crucial
determinants of both the current and future state of sustainable development. The observations of
Acemoglu and Robinson (2012) that "extractive" economics that unfairly exploit labor and/or the
2
The reader, if he/she prefers can first review the analysis of the several investigated indexes in section 3.2 which
follows
29
environment do not succeed to have strong economic growth partly inspired the choice of these
enablers. In a nutshell, unfair nations will suffer on economic deficit.
A total sustainable development score at a national level is not provided because for each
country the importance of each category might be different (taking into account the different
country characteristics). Thus, an analysis per country is required in order to identify the
importance of each category. Although in terms of public awareness it is useful to have a total
score/ranking, this is out of scope in the current thesis. However an illustrative weighting
according to author's opinion is provided for the indicators in order to assess the performance of
each country and obtain rankings per category. The weighting is a rough approximation which
according to the author's judgment is not far afield from what experts might accept. No attempt
to verify the characterization of the current metrics by experts took place as this was beyond the
scope of the thesis. Furthermore the results per indicator are provided in the Appendix and thus
the results per category can easily be adjusted for a different weighting. What is important in the
analysis is the general picture that this weighting provides, as a result of applying a meaningful
methodology.
30
O
Economic
Equality &
purchasing
power
Competitiv eness
(efficientde livery
uf gouo&
Services)
Resource
Depletion
Biodiversity/
LEcosystems
OA.
Toxic
Employment
Pollution
C
10
Climate
Change
Education
Environmental
Justice
Health
Peace &
Security
Rights
& Justice
Figure 20: Proposed Framework for Sustainable Development Assessment
A detailed analysis of the sources and description of each indicator is included in the Appendix
(Table Al).
The twelve categories, along with their weights and indicators, are:
Resource Depletion
* Water use intensity - 25%
* Change in Forest Cover - 25%
* Energy Use - 25%
* Paper and cardboard recycling rate - 25%
31
Biodiversity/Ecosystems
0
Biodiversity and Habitat - 100%
Toxic Pollution
* Air pollution - 25%
*
Water quality - 25%
*
Access to sanitation - 25%
*
Waste generation per capita - 25%
Climate Change
* C02 Emissions - 33.33%
*
Green Technologies - 33.33%
*
Renewable Energy - 33.33%
Environmental Justice
0
Environmental Protection -100%
Rights and Justice
*
Civil Liberties - 25%
* Political Rights - 25%
*
Justice - 30%
* Equal Rights - 10%
*
Social Cohesion - 10%
Peace and Security
*
Political Stability - 45%
*
Murders -10%
*
Personal Security and Private property rights - 45%
Health
*
Life expectancy at birth - 25%
*
Health infrastructure - 50%
32
0
Mortality rate , under age 5 - 25%
Education
*
Quality of the educational system - 40%
*
University education - 30%
*
Pupil-teacher ratio - 20%
*
Illiteracy -10%
Employment
*
Unemployment - 35%
*
Youth Unemployment - 35%
*
Labour Relations - 15%
*
Corporate values take into account the values of employees - 15%
Economic Equality and Purchasing Power
*
Gini index - 25%
*
GDP Per Capita - 50%
*
Income distribution (lowest 10%) - 25%
Competitiveness (Efficient delivery of Goods and Services)
*
Basic infrastructure - 25%
*
Total infrastructure - 25%
*
Large corporations are efficient by international standards - 25%
*
Small and medium-size enterprises are efficient by international standards - 25%
The weights and the indicators for the enabling dimensions are:
Ethical Concerns and Governance
*
Bribery and Corruption - 30%
*
Government Effectiveness - 30%
*
Transparency of Government Policymaking - 30%
*
Social Responsibility (Social Responsibility of Business Leaders is high) - 10%
33
Potential for Innovation
*
Innovative capacity of firms - 40%
*
Researchers and scientists - 20%
*
Scientific Research legislation -40%
3.2 Comparison of proposed framework vs. current approaches
It is important to identify which elements are being adequately captured, both by the existing and
by the new proposed index, in order to be possible to select/utilize the best available framework
depending on the specific area of interest of each stakeholder. Thus, it is required to have an
assessment of each index in order to identify which categories are adequately covered.
In Figure 21, a qualitative assessment of each index is provided, based on whether each of the
twelve categories and the two enablers are adequately covered/represented (by using indicators
which are meaningful and can adequately measure the impact). The methodology for the
qualitative assessment is based on a comparative assessment of the number of KPIs included per
category, on whether the KPIs cover the specific category, and on the weights used per
indicator/category. The assessment takes place by using Harvey balls. A fully (black) Harvey
ball represents that the index fully covers the category, while an empty (white) Harvey ball
represents that the category is not covered as part of the specific index.
In the assessment, all the discussed indexes are compared, except the EIRIS sustainability
ratings. The reason for the exclusion of EIRIS ratings is the fact that both the full methodology
and the rankings are not publicly available. Thus, a potential inclusion of EIRIS in the following
assessment could be misleading and thus the specific index is not included.
34
Biodiversity
/Ecosystems
@
0
@
0
Pollution
Climate
Change
Environmental
Justice
Rights and
Justice
Peace and
Security
0
a
0
.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 .0
0
Health
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
Education
0
Employment
Economic equality and
0
Purchasing Power
Ethical Concerns and
0
0
0
0
0 0
~0
Govern'nce
Potential for
Innovation
0
400
4
Competitiveness
0
0
F
Fully covered
o
Not covered
-------------------
-.....----------
0
0
0
0
0
a
Figure 21: Qualitative Assessment of indexes per category
3.2.1 BCG Sustainable Economic Development Assessment (SEDA)
The BCG SEDA framework adequately covers many of the twelve categories, which are
important in order to measure the current state of the sustainable development, but puts less
emphasis on the environmental area. For the assessment of all the environmental related
categories, SEDA uses in only four indicators (air pollution, carbon dioxide intensity, electricity
from renewable and terrestrial protected areas), which do not cover resource depletion or
35
0
environmental justice and only partially covers biodiversity, toxic pollution and climate change.
In terms of health, competitiveness, rights and justice, the SEDA framework fully captures these
elements since it utilizes various indicators to assure accurate measurement of these areas.
Furthermore, in terms of education, employment, economic equality and purchasing power,
peace and security categories the BCG SEDA framework is a good approach, but still has room
for further improvement (e.g., Education: include an assessment of the university education,
Employment: Include Youth Unemployment, Economic Equality and Purchasing Power: Reduce
the importance of inflation, Peace and Security: Increase importance of personal security vs. only
terrorism). Finally, regarding the categories of innovation, ethical concerns and governance it
should be stated that BCG SEDA uses some proxies (e.g., Average of math sciences and scores)
but fails in total to illustrate the importance of these areas.
3.2.2 Sustainability Adjusted Global Competitiveness Index
The Sustainability Adjusted Global Competitiveness Index by World Economic Forum has the
largest number of indicators among all reviewed indexes. The majority of the indicators are used
for the construction of GCI and only 19 extra social and environmental indicators are used for
the final sustainability adjusted index. However, due to the large number of indicators the
majority of categories are covered. Nevertheless, it should be stated that due to the
methodological approach used (which is based mainly on the GCI index), the adjustment on GCI
is limited and does not reflect adequately the importance of the environmental and social
elements. The environmental categories are adequately covered with room for specific
improvements identified mainly in the climate change category (e.g., percentage of renewable
could be added). Due to the fact that the sustainability adjusted Global Competitiveness Index is
based on the GCI the categories of Competitiveness, Health, Education, Peace and Security are
36
fully covered. A Significant gap has been identified in the crucial element of employment which
is
being
covered
only
youth
through the
unemployment
metric;
thus,
significantly
underestimating the importance of this category. Finally, although the innovation and ethical
concerns and governance categories are covered, their importance is underestimated due to the
method used to calculate the sustainability adjusted Global Competitiveness Index, which limits
the impact of social and environmental categories to +20% per category.
3.2.3 FEEM Sustainability Index Approach
The FEEM Sustainability Index only adequately covers a few categories. The categories of
Employment, Peace and Security, Rights and Justice are not represented by any indicator.
Moreover
the
FEEM
index
uses
a
specific
number
of
financial
indicators
(Net
Investment/Capital Stock, Trade Balance/Market Openness, etc.) and is not focusing on the
equality and competitiveness elements. The Environmental Categories, in contrast with the rest,
are adequately covered, with the exception of Environmental Justice which is not represented by
any metric. Moreover, the innovation and ethical concerns and governance categories are not
adequately represented and the framework does not highlight the importance of these enablers.
3.2.3 Sustainable Society index- SSI
The Sustainable Society Index adequately covers the majority of the environmental categories
but at the same time fails to represent at least five categories: the areas of Rights and Justice,
Peace and Security, Environmental Justice, Competitiveness and Potential for innovation are not
represented. The areas of health, education and employment are partially covered, while in the
area of ethical concerns and governance the indicators focus solely on the part of governance.
The economic equality and purchasing power is adequately covered by taking into account both
the income distribution and the GDP.
37
3.2.4 Environmental Performance Index (EPI)
The Environmental Performance Index, as it has been analyzed, deals only with environmental
elements. Thus, the other categories are not represented in this index, with the exemption of
health that is partially covered through child mortality. Furthermore, the Environmental Justice
category
is
also
not
represented.
Nevertheless,
regarding
the
Resource
Depletion,
Biodiversity/Ecosystems, Toxic Pollution and Climate change the methodology used could be
assessed as the most complete when compared to the other available indexes. However, it should
be stated that further improvement in terms of data availability, number of countries and
inclusion of new indicators is possible (e.g., impact of innovation on environment, environmental
justice, etc.).
3.2.5 Human Development Index
The Human Development Index is an index based on few indicators, but is an important tool for
global awareness in terms of progress in main areas of human development. However, it fails to
cover many elements which are crucial for the sustainable growth of a country. Thus, the only
categories which are partially covered are Health, Education and Purchasing Power.
3.2.6 OECD Better Life Index
Due to the nature of the OECD Better Life index, it deals with specific categories. Thus, it does
not cover the majority of the environmental categories (with the exception of the air pollution
and water quality indicators) and the potential for innovation area. The other categories are being
covered partially (e.g., focusing only on purchasing power, or indirectly using a proxy to capture
competitiveness). However, it should be stated that the category of employment is uniquely
represented by the specific index since OECD Better Life Index does not use only the standard
38
unemployment metrics but also includes work-life balance indicators (e.g., Employees working
very long hours).
3.2.7 INCRA Country Ratings
The INCRA Report is incorporating some sustainability data in order to create Forward Looking
Indicators. As it was expected based on the nature of the index, the environmental categories are
represented only through a generic proxy of environmental sustainability. Also, although the
purchasing power is represented by many indicators, equality is not included in the metrics.
Furthermore, it should be stated that the Rights and Justice category is greatly represented since
there are many metrics used to cover this area (e.g., Independent Judiciary, Separation of
Powers, Property Rights, etc.).
3.2.8 Social Progress Index
The Social Progress Index (SPI) has a target to identify the dimensions of social and
environmental performance of societies and be used as a supplementary metric to GDP.
However, by not covering at all the elements of equality, employment and potential for
innovation, SPI fails in measuring significant elements of sustainable development. However, it
should be stated that the social progress index fully covers the categories of Education, Health,
Peace and Security by using a significant number of innovative metrics (e.g., nine metrics related
to Education, 10 metrics related to Health and five metrics for Peace and Security).
3.2.9 Happy Planet Index (HPI)
HPI has as its target the provision of information regarding "how well nations are doing in terms
of supporting their inhabitants to live good lives now, while ensuring that others can do the same
in the future" (Happy Planet Index 2012, p. 2). HPI utilizes three indicators and is an important
39
tool in terms of global awareness. However, it provides limited information/data which could be
utilized for potential government policies/decisions. Finally it should be stated that nef (the new
economics foundation) is launching a Happy Planet Charter (Figure 22) calling the governments
to adopt new measures related with sustainable well-being for all (Happy Planet Index, 2012).
We nemd raw nmeams of humn progass.
The, Happy Planet Index offers us an excellent exarnple of how
such mneasures work inpractice. Itshows that while the challenges
faced by rich resource-inensive nationsand those with high levels
of poverty and deprivation may be very diffeient, the end goal is
the same: long and happy lives that don't cost the earth.
We must balance the prominence currently given to GDP with those
measues that tale seriously the challenges we face in the 21st century: creating
economies that deliver sustainable well-being for all
By signing this charter we:
0 Call on govemrents to adopt new measures of human progress that put the goal
of delivering sustainable well-being for all at the heart of societal and economic
decision-making
0 Resolve to build the political will needed across society to fully establish these better
rmeasures of human progress by working with partner organisations
k Call on the United Nations to develop an indicator as part of the post-2015 framework
that. lile the Happy Planet Index, measures progress tcwards the ley goal for a better
future: sustainable well-being for all.
Source: Happy Planet Index (2012).
Figure 22: Qualitative Assessment of indexes per category
3.2.10 The new proposed Framework
The framework proposed in this thesis utilizes the best available features of the other indexes and
also highlights the importance of the potential for innovation, ethical concerns and governance as
crucial enablers in order to move towards a more sustainable state. It should be stated that there
are significant data limitations that could result in further improving the proposed index (e.g.
poverty data, recycling data with no gaps, etc). Also, especially in the environmental categories
aggregate scores were used by EPI (e.g. Biodiversity/Ecosystems) in order to limit the number of
40
indicators used. Furthermore, the Environmental Justice assessment was based on an evaluation
of 2001, and an update is required in order to be possible to obtain conclusions which could be
easily be utilized by governments. Despite these limitations, the index provides a clear
improvement in terms of identifying the main areas of importance and selecting indicators which
will provide useful insights to stakeholders.
41
4. The Proposed Framework for Sustainable Development- Category
Results
As it has already been discussed, an aggregate ranking of sustainable development is thought to
be an insufficient metric for comparing countries due to the different country characteristics and
the importance of each category in various countries. Thus, an analysis both per category and per
country is necessary in order to identify the main drivers of meaningful performance. In this
section, the ranking and results per category are presented, while in Appendix the detailed
rankings and results per indicator are included. The index of each category is based on a 0-10
scale, while the maximum for the indicator is dependent on each weight to the total category. As
already discussed, this ranking is a comparative assessment of the countries included and does
not reflect the relative performance vs. countries which are not included in the sample.
A
detailed analysis of the sources and description of each indicator is included in the Appendix
(Table Al).
4.1 Resource Depletion
In the category of Resource Depletion the country with the highest score (Table 1) is
Switzerland, while the second and the third country in the ranking are Netherlands and Portugal
respectively. It should be stated that the first position for Switzerland is driven by a good
performance, but not a top performance (Appendix, Tables A2-A5) in each of the relevant
component indicators. Thus, Switzerland ranks 22
in Water use intensity, 14th in Change in
Forest Cover (with small difference in both cases vs. the first), 3rd in Energy Use and 5 thin
Recycling. USA is ranked
2 4 th
while Norway is ranked
2 0 th
and Germany
8
th.
It should be stated
that the third ranked country is Portugal is determined mainly by the performance in the area of
energy use.
42
Table 1: Resource Depletion- Scores and Ranking
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Resource Depletion
Category
Switzerland
Netherlands
Portugal
Lithuania
United Kingdom
Korea
Luxembourg
Germany
Slovenia
Poland
Sweden
Austria
Finland
Australia
Japan
Spain
Romania
New Zealand
Denmark
Norway
Italy
France
Slovak Republic
USA
Hungary
Belgium
Colombia
Czech Republic
Croatia
Turkey
Estonia
Greece
Brazil
Bulgaria
43
Score
9.44
9.31
9.19
9.03
8.95
8.93
8.92
8.85
8.79
8.76
8.73
8.73
8.71
8.64
8.62
8.62
8.58
8.55
8.51
8.47
8.42
8.31
8.31
8.28
8.18
8.06
8.05
7.97
7.92
7.92
7.89
7.88
7.82
7.75
35
36
Malaysia
Mexico
7.10
37
South Africa
6.79
38
Russia
6.09
39
Kazakhstan
5.35
40
Jordan
4.33
41
Iceland
2.51
6.91
4.2 Biodiversity/Ecosystems
The ranking of Biodiversity/Ecosystems is based on the indicator of Biodiversity of the
Environmental Performance Index (Appendix Table Al). The five countries with the highest
score (Table 2) are Estonia, Germany, Luxemburg, Slovenia and Switzerland. USA is ranked
38 th, while Norway is 23rd. The lowest-ranked categories are Kazakhstan, Jordan and Qatar. It
should be highlighted that France is ranked only
4 6 th
and Spain
4 5 th.
Finally, it should be stated
that Czech Republic and Latvia achieve have a high score and are being ranked 6
respectively.
Table 2: Biodiversity/Ecosystems - Scores and Ranking
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Biodiversity/Ecosystems
Estonia
Germany
Luxembourg
Slovenia
Switzerland
Czech Republic
UAE
Latvia
Netherlands
Malaysia
Venezuela
Lithuania
Poland
Austria
Slovakia
44
Score
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
9.82
9.61
9.47
9.42
9.28
9.23
9.11
9.10
8.54
8.29
th
and 8
th
16
Australia
8.15
17
18
19
Iceland
Colombia
Italy
8.02
7.86
7.79
20
Indonesia
7.61
21
New Zealand
7.38
22
Japan
7.11
23
24
25
26
27
28
Norway
Taiwan
Croatia
Peru
Thailand
United Kingdom
6.91
6.87
6.82
6.76
6.74
6.73
29
Bulgaria
6.60
30
Denmark
6.48
31
Brazil
6.37
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
China
Greece
Philippines
Portugal
South Africa
Romania
United States of America
Sweden
Mexico
Finland
Chile
Canada
6.35
6.34
6.14
6.11
6.06
6.01
6.00
5.89
5.88
5.83
5.65
5.46
44
Belgium
5.36
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Spain
France
Russia
Korea
Singapore
Argentina
Ukraine
Israel
5.25
5.02
4.91
4.58
4.14
3.98
3.60
3.37
53
India
3.36
54
Turkey
2.64
45
55
Hungary
2.31
56
57
58
59
Ireland
Kazakhstan
Jordan
Qatar
1.12
0.62
0.01
0.00
4.3 Toxic Pollution
In the category of Toxic Pollution (Table 3), the ranked countries number only 31 due to the data
availability. Canada, Finland and Sweden have the highest aggregate scores. Canada although it
has the best performance is ranked 27th in the categories of water quality and access to sanitation;
however with small difference when compared with the top performers. Portugal, although
ranked
4 th
in the toxic pollution category, it is being ranked only
3 0 th
in the indicator of water
quality. The performance of Finland is influenced by Air pollution, Water Quality and Air
Sanitation. It should be stated that although not included in the aggregated scores (due to lack of
waste data) Australia's scores are high in the remaining three indicators of the category. USA is
ranked 25th , Germany 14
and Norway
1 8 th.
Finally, China is being ranked last and the
performance is influenced by the performance in Air-Pollution (lowest score), Water Quality and
Access to Sanitation.
Table 3: Toxic Pollution - Scores and Ranking
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Toxic Pollution
Canada
Finland
Sweden
Portugal
Japan
Slovak Republic
Czech Republic
Iceland
United Kingdom
46
Scores
8.64
8.57
8.54
8.50
8.45
8.44
8.38
8.34
8.17
10
France
8.15
11
Spain
8.11
12
13
Hungary
Belgium
7.79
7.74
14
Germany
7.70
15
Greece
7.68
16
Austria
7.57
17
Denmark
7.51
18
Norway
7.46
19
Netherlands
7.39
20
Luxembourg
7.39
21
Switzerland
7.15
22
Ireland
6.92
23
Korea
6.89
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Turkey
United States
Poland
Italy
Mexico
Russian Federation
South Africa
China
6.86
6.63
6.14
5.89
5.44
5.39
4.76
3.38
4.4 Climate Change
In the category of Climate Change (Table 4), Iceland is ranked first with significant difference
from the second-place Denmark. The performance of Iceland is driven mainly by Renewable
Energy (although it also has high scores in all the indicators of the category). In the Renewable
Energy category, Iceland has an impressive 84% share of renewables in total energy
requirements, while the second-place Brazil has a 44%. USA is ranked 37 th, Germany IOth and
Norway
4 th.
The last positions in the ranking are held by Russia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, and
are driven by the following indicators: C02 Emissions, Renewable Energy, and Green
Technologies.
47
Table 4: Climate Change - Scores and Ranking
Ranking Climate Change
Iceland
1
2
Denmark
Sweden
3
Norway
4
Portugal
5
New Zealand
6
Score
93.87
73.61
73.23
70.15
66.67
66.03
7
Austria
65.15
8
9
10
11
Switzerland
Brazil
Germany
Finland
63.32
62.59
60.95
60.65
12
Spain
59.52
13
14
15
16
17
Japan
Canada
Philippines
Ireland
Italy
57.97
57.24
56.37
56.13
55.80
18
Luxembourg
54.45
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
54.34
54.21
53.92
53.86
53.81
53.39
52.88
52.74
51.24
50.89
50.65
50.27
50.23
49.31
33
34
35
Netherlands
Indonesia
Latvia
Israel
Belgium
France
Lithuania
Greece
Chile
Colombia
Singapore
UAE
Peru
Slovenia
United
Kingdom
Thailand
Malaysia
48.88
48.43
48.34
36
Korea
47.80
37
38
USA
Mexico
47.36
47.29
48
39
Hong Kong
47.16
40
Turkey
46.89
41
Australia
46.75
42
Taiwan
45.89
43
44
Qatar
Poland
45.44
45.29
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
India
Croatia
Czech Republic
Slovak Republic
Hungary
Estonia
Romania
Jordan
44.22
43.94
42.89
42.28
39.55
37.89
37.29
35.81
53
South Africa
34.39
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Argentina
China Mainland
Venezuela
Bulgaria
Russia
Kazakhstan
Ukraine
33.91
32.17
30.43
28.30
17.85
16.86
10.26
4.5 Environmental Justice
For the category of environmental justice (Table 5), it was difficult to obtain recent data. The
most recent available data are of 2001; thus, the ranking is somewhat speculative. In this
category, Finland is ranked first, and after that Sweden and Singapore, while the poorest
performance is the one of Romania and Ukraine. It should be stated that available indexes of
Environmental Laws (e.g., IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook: Environmental Laws
indicator) exist; however the fact that they measure "whether the environmental laws and
compliance do not hinder the competitiveness of businesses" (rather than promoting a more
sustainable state) led us to not include them in the specific assessment.
49
Table 5: Environmental Protection - Scores and Ranking
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Environmental
Protection
Finland
Sweden
Singapore
Netherlands
Austria
Switzerland
Germany
Score
10.00
8.53
8.52
8.46
8.16
8.13
7.83
8
France
7.67
9
10
Denmark
Iceland
7.44
7.36
11
New Zealand
7.21
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Canada
United Kingdom
United States
Belgium
Australia
Japan
Norway
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Estonia
Hungary
Slovenia
Chile
Czech
Israel
Poland
Jordan
Portugal
South Africa
Latvia
Brazil
Korea
Malaysia
7.21
6.89
6.89
6.82
6.61
6.54
6.51
5.12
4.99
4.82
4.43
4.39
4.18
4.09
3.81
3.66
3.62
3.61
3.53
3.52
3.50
3.39
3.27
3.25
36
Lithuania
3.20
37
38
Slovak
China
3.11
2.64
50
39
Thailand
2.52
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Colombia
Bulgaria
Mexico
Greece
Peru
Argentina
Indonesia
2.45
1.98
1.93
1.88
1.60
1.57
1.50
47
India
1.49
48
49
50
51
52
Russia
Philippines
Venezuela
Romania
Ukraine
1.12
0.79
0.61
0.08
0.00
4.6 Rights and Justice
In the category of Rights and Justice (Table 6), the countries with the highest scores are Norway
( 1st), Sweden (2 ") and Denmark ( 3 rd) followed by Canada and Finland.
Norway's score is
driven (Appendix, Tables A13-A17) by the Civil Liberties, Political Rights, Justice and Equal
Rights indicators in which it ranks in the top two positions. In these indicators, all the Nordic
countries achieve a high score. USA is ranked
1 5 th
and Germany
16 th.
The worst scores in the
category of Rights and Justice are those of Russia, China, and Venezuela. The underperformance
of China is mainly driven by the civil liberties and political rights indicators while it also scores
low in the remaining three indicators (Justice, Equal Rights and Social Cohesion).
Table 6: Rights and Justice - Scores and Ranking
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
Rights and
Justice
Norway
Sweden
Denmark
Canada
Finland
51
Score
9.66
9.56
9.51
9.44
9.31
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Switzerland
Ireland
Australia
Netherlands
New Zealand
United Kingdom
Japan
Iceland
Luxembourg
USA
Germany
France
Belgium
Israel
20
Chile
8.31
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Austria
Estonia
Taiwan
Poland
Lithuania
Czech Republic
Brazil
Spain
Slovenia
Latvia
Korea
Hungary
Croatia
Singapore
South Africa
Italy
India
Portugal
Romania
Slovak Republic
Greece
Malaysia
Philippines
Argentina
8.20
7.81
7.81
7.69
7.63
7.31
6.91
6.72
6.72
6.68
6.65
6.60
6.59
6.56
6.54
6.52
6.45
6.33
6.28
6.23
6.20
6.05
5.94
5.51
45
Mexico
5.49
46
Indonesia
5.49
52
9.11
9.06
9.05
8.98
8.89
8.89
8.80
8.74
8.71
8.69
8.66
8.36
8.35
8.32
47
Thailand
5.36
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
Peru
Bulgaria
Qatar
Turkey
UAE
Colombia
Kazakhstan
Ukraine
Jordan
Russia
China Mainland
Venezuela
5.28
5.04
5.02
5.00
4.87
4.59
3.69
3.67
3.52
2.25
2.06
1.33
4.7 Peace and Security
In the category of Peace and Security (Table 7), the countries with the highest scores are
Denmark, Switzerland, and Norway. The performance of Denmark (Appendix, tables A18-A20)
is mainly driven by the political stability (1st) and personal security (2 nd) indicators, while in the
indicator of homicides is ranked
while Germany is
9 th.
9 th.
USA is ranked in the Peace and Security category 17th
The lowest scores are those of Argentina, Ukraine, and Venezuela driven
mainly by issues in terms of political stability and personal security.
Table 7: Peace and Security - Scores and Ranking
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Peace and
Security
Denmark
Switzerland
Norway
Finland
Sweden
Canada
Singapore
Luxembourg
53
Score
9.93
9.67
9.66
9.59
9.43
9.35
9.31
9.24
9
10
Germany
United Kingdom
9.22
9.07
11
12
New Zealand
UAE
13
14
Ireland
Netherlands
15
16
17
18
Australia
Qatar
USA
Austria
9.03
8.86
8.81
8.75
8.72
8.72
8.66
8.64
19
Hong Kong
8.55
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Chile
France
Japan
Taiwan
Israel
Belgium
Malaysia
Estonia
8.35
8.24
7.80
7.79
7.56
28
Spain
7.12
29
30
31
32
33
34
Poland
Turkey
Portugal
Latvia
Czech Republic
Lithuania
7.02
7.02
6.81
6.72
6.63
6.62
35
Philippines
6.59
36
Slovak Republic
37
Jordan
6.42
6.40
38
India
6.26
39
40
China Mainland
Croatia
41
42
Korea
Mexico
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Indonesia
Kazakhstan
Iceland
Brazil
Thailand
Greece
Colombia
6.18
6.08
6.06
6.05
6.02
5.98
5.95
5.90
5.50
5.47
54
7.52
7.38
7.16
5.26
50
51
52
Hungary
Romania
Italy
5.18
5.17
53
Peru
4.81
54
55
56
57
58
South Africa
Slovenia
Russia
Bulgaria
Argentina
4.64
4.55
4.30
59
Ukraine
2.21
60
Venezuela
0.00
5.11
3.49
3.24
4.8 Health
In the category of Health (Table 8), the countries with the highest scores are Switzerland,
Belgium and Singapore. The performance of Switzerland (Appendix, Tables A21-A23) is driven
mainly by the Health Infrastructure and Life Expectancy indicators. USA is ranked
Health infrastructure,
Germany is
8 th.
3 0 th
in Life Expectancy and
3 7 th
2 9 th (3 0 th
in
in Mortality Rate indicators) while
Japan has the highest life expectancy at birth (83.6 years) while the country with
the lowest infant mortality is Hong Kong. The lowest-ranked countries in the category of Health
are India and South Africa driven by the very poor performance in Life Expectancy (South
Africa 53.4 years) and Mortality Rate (India 61.3 per 1000 live births).
Table 8: Health - Scores and Ranking
Health
Ranking
1
Switzerland
2
Belgium
Singapore
3
France
4
Denmark
5
Score
9.69
9.60
9.45
9.43
9.33
6
Austria
9.23
7
8
Netherlands
Germany
9.21
9.18
55
9
Luxembourg
9.17
10
11
12
Spain
Japan
Sweden
9.17
9.13
9.12
13
14
15
Taiwan
Finland
Hong Kong
9.11
16
Iceland
8.73
17
Norway
8.70
18
19
20
21
22
Australia
Canada
Czech Republic
Korea
Israel
8.67
8.59
8.59
8.55
8.33
8.74
8.74
United
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Kingdom
Portugal
Malaysia
New Zealand
Italy
UAE
USA
Qatar
8.20
8.17
8.16
8.05
8.02
8.02
7.72
7.70
31
Slovenia
7.46
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Estonia
Thailand
Ukraine
Croatia
Greece
Ireland
Turkey
Poland
Chile
Jordan
Latvia
Mexico
Lithuania
Slovak Republic
Hungary
7.10
7.09
7.04
6.89
6.86
6.84
6.66
6.30
6.23
6.12
6.10
6.04
5.97
5.81
5.66
47
Argentina
5.43
48
China Mainland
5.20
56
49
50
IPhilippines
Indonesia
5.03
4.77
51
52
53
54
55
56
Colombia
Kazakhstan
Brazil
Russia
Peru
Bulgaria
4.43
4.35
4.31
4.29
4.12
3.98
57
58
Venezuela
Romania
3.88
3.77
59
60
India
South Africa
2.63
1.22
4.9 Education
In the category of Education (Table 9), the highest ranked countries are Switzerland, Finland,
Belgium and Denmark. The high performance of Switzerland is driven (Appendix, Tables A24A27) by the University Education, Illiteracy and Quality of Educational system indicators. USA
is ranked
Education
1 7 th
7 th,
(University Education
1 0 th,
Pupil-Teacher Ratio 41st) and Germany
Quality of Educational System
7 th).
7 th
(University
The lowest-ranked countries in the category of
Education are Bulgaria, Peru, Brazil, and South Africa. It should be stated that the country with
the lowest score in the category of Illiteracy is India which has an illiteracy rate of 24.8% (as a
percentage of its population).
Table 9: Education - Scores and Ranking
Ranking
1
Education
Switzerland
Score
9.60
2
3
4
Finland
Belgium
Denmark
5
6
Canada
Singapore
9.36
9.05
9.03
8.83
8.81
7
8
Germany
Netherlands
8.45
8.34
57
9
10
Australia
Sweden
8.20
8.19
11
12
Qatar
Ireland
Iceland
Israel
Malaysia
Norway
USA
Austria
8.10
8.10
7.82
7.81
7.73
7.70
7.62
UAE
New Zealand
France
Luxembourg
Poland
United
Kingdom
Lithuania
7.48
7.47
6.65
6.63
6.49
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Portugal
Taiwan
Estonia
Czech
Republic
Indonesia
Jordan
Greece
Korea
Italy
Japan
Spain
Slovenia
Kazakhstan
Hungary
Russia
Philippines
Ukraine
Turkey
Thailand
45
46
Croatia
Chile
4.53
4.45
47
48
Argentina
Mexico
4.35
4.27
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
58
7.59
7.30
7.25
7.07
7.03
6.83
6.26
5.95
5.92
5.85
5.79
5.72
5.38
5.36
5.29
5.29
5.01
4.86
4.76
4.76
4.72
4.70
52
53
54
55
56
57
China
Mainland
Colombia
India
Slovak
Republic
Venezuela
Romania
Bulgaria
Peru
Brazil
58
South Africa
49
50
51
4.21
4.00
3.96
3.94
3.68
3.52
2.94
2.92
2.91
2.34
4.10 Employment
In the category of employment (Table 10), the highest-ranked countries are Thailand, Qatar and
Norway. In terms of unemployment Thailand and Qatar have a percentage less than 1%, while
even in the youth unemployment they achieve to have less than 3%. USA is ranked 29h (41stin
terms of Unemployment) while Germany is ranked
10 th.
It should be stated that Thailand
although it has, as stated, an impressive performance in the indicators of unemployment, in the
indicators of labor relations and corporate values is ranked only 181h and 17th respectively. The
lowest ranked countries are Greece, Spain and South Africa driven by the fact that they have an
unemployment rate of more than 24% and a youth unemployment rate of more than 50%. It
should be stated that the unemployment rate (and youth unemployment) in Greece has further
increased (Eurostat 2013) during the last year and thus a further deterioration in the ranking is
expected.
Table 10: Employment - Scores and Ranking
Ranking
Employment
Score
1
2
Thailand
Qatar
9.15
9.13
3
Norway
9.08
59
5
6
7
Switzerland
Singapore
Malaysia
Japan
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Austria
UAE
Germany
Hong Kong
Kazakhstan
Netherlands
Taiwan
Iceland
Denmark
Mexico
India
Canada
Australia
Sweden
Korea
Luxembourg
Philippines
Peru
Israel
Brazil
New Zealand
USA
Finland
Indonesia
Chile
United Kingdom
Belgium
Russia
Czech Republic
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Turkey
Ukraine
Colombia
Estonia
Romania
Venezuela
Slovenia
Lithuania
4
60
8.83
8.69
8.62
8.60
8.40
8.33
8.29
8.25
8.18
8.18
8.09
8.00
7.86
7.83
7.74
7.53
7.40
7.40
7.39
7.38
7.32
7.26
7.26
7.23
7.07
7.06
6.90
6.79
6.69
6.66
6.54
6.54
6.50
6.49
6.46
6.25
6.21
5.92
5.92
5.64
5.47
46
47
48
Ireland
Hungary
France
Jordan
5.43
5.37
5.33
5.20
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
Latvia
Poland
Italy
Slovak Republic
Bulgaria
Portugal
Croatia
Greece
Spain
4.76
4.54
4.46
4.45
4.15
4.10
3.13
1.29
1.13
58
South Africa
1.06
45
4.11 Economic Equality and Purchasing Power
In the category of Economic Equality and Purchasing power (Table 11), the countries with the
highest score are Luxembourg, Norway and Japan. All these countries have achieved balance
both in terms of GDP per Capita but also in terms of income distribution (Appendix, Tables
A32-A34). It should be stated that although it is 7th in terms of GDP per capita, the USA in the
ranked aggregate category is 25th due to the poor performance in terms of Gini index (40 th) and
Income distribution (47 th). Also highlighted is the case of Singapore which is ranked 4th in terms
of GDP per capita but in the aggregate category is 19th due to the disappointing performance in
the remaining indicators (Gini 45 th, Income Distribution 48th). The countries with the lowest
scores in the category of Economic Equality and Purchasing are Brazil, South Africa and
Colombia, driven mainly by the low performance in terms of economic equality.
61
Table 11: Economic Equality and Purchasing Power - Scores and Ranking
Ranking
Economic equality
and Purchasing Power
1
2
Luxembourg
Norway
3
Japan
4
5
6
Qatar
Sweden
Finland
7
Austria
8
9
10
11
12
13
Czech Republic
Slovak Republic
Switzerland
Germany
Denmark
Belgium
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Netherlands
Ireland
Canada
France
Slovenia
Singapore
Kazakhstan
Korea
Ukraine
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Hungary
Australia
USA
Hong Kong
Spain
Poland
Romania
30
Croatia
31
32
33
34
35
36
United Kingdom
Italy
New Zealand
Greece
Estonia
Lithuania
37
Latvia
62
Score
8.29
7.43
6.64
6.63
6.28
6.17
5.85
5.82
5.77
5.71
5.70
5.63
5.40
5.18
5.14
5.08
4.89
4.87
4.85
4.72
4.72
4.71
4.70
4.60
4.43
4.39
4.35
4.33
4.32
4.30
4.19
4.14
4.07
4.01
3.90
3.73
3.68
38
3.65
39
40
41
42
Israel
Russia
Indonesia
India
Portugal
43
44
45
46
Jordan
Bulgaria
Turkey
China Mainland
47
48
Venezuela
Philippines
49
50
51
52
Malaysia
Mexico
Argentina
Thailand
2.24
2.11
53
54
55
56
Chile
Peru
Brazil
South Africa
1.76
1.51
0.78
0.63
57
Colombia
0.36
3.45
3.43
3.40
3.33
3.27
3.15
2.92
2.47
2.32
2.32
2.05
1.93
4.12 Competitiveness
In the category of Competitiveness (Table 12), the countries with the highest scores are
Switzerland, Sweden and USA. All these countries have very good performance in all the
indicators related to competitiveness (Appendix Tables A35-A38). Germany is ranked 5thwhich
is driven mainly by the small and medium size enterprises indicator ( 1 't position). Furthermore, it
should be highlighted that Italy is ranked 43,d in the Competitiveness category driven mainly by
the poor performance in the basic infrastructure category (5 6 th).Finally, the countries with lowest
scores are Jordan, Bulgaria and Venezuela.
Table 12: Competitiveness - Scores and Ranking
Ranking Competitiveness
1
Switzerland
Score
8.79
2
Sweden
8.71
3
USA
8.65
63
11
12
Denmark
Germany
Netherlands
Finland
Hong Kong
Norway
Canada
Singapore
Austria
13
14
15
16
17
18
France
Ireland
Belgium
Taiwan
Malaysia
UAE
8.40
8.38
7.84
7.47
7.41
7.38
7.27
7.16
7.14
7.14
7.00
6.92
6.89
6.69
6.64
19
20
21
22
23
24
United Kingdom
Israel
Czech Republic
Luxembourg
Iceland
Australia
6.31
6.13
5.98
5.96
5.77
5.61
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Spain
Qatar
New Zealand
Slovak Republic
Lithuania
Japan
Korea
China Mainland
Portugal
Thailand
Turkey
Hungary
5.38
5.36
5.25
5.24
5.15
4.95
4.93
4.78
4.78
4.53
4.52
4.49
37
38
39
40
41
Mexico
Estonia
Chile
Latvia
Poland
42
43
44
Philippines
Italy
Greece
4.42
4.31
4.24
4.20
4.13
3.94
3.88
3.83
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
64
45
46
47
48
49
Ukraine
Slovenia
Kazakhstan
Indonesia
Romania
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
India
Colombia
Brazil
Croatia
Peru
Russia
South Africa
Argentina
Jordan
Bulgaria
60
Venezuela
3.55
3.46
3.45
3.28
3.26
3.22
3.03
2.85
2.82
2.75
2.50
2.15
1.94
1.74
1.60
0.46
4.13 Ethical Concerns and Governance
In the category of Ethical Concerns and Governance (Table 13), the countries with the highest
scores are Denmark, Singapore and the UAE. Denmark has the best performance in terms of lack
of Bribing and Corruption while Singapore is ranked first in terms of Government Effectiveness
(Appendix, Tables A39-A42). USA is ranked
2 0 th
due to mediocre performance in almost all
indicators in this category (Bribing and Corruption:
2 1st,
Government Effectiveness:
2 5 th
Transparency of Government Policy Making: 19th, Social Responsibility: 301h). The countries
with the lowest scores are Argentina, Ukraine (holding the last position in Bribing and
Corruption),
and Venezuela (holding the last position in Government
Effectiveness
Transparency).
Table 13: Ethical Concerns and Governance- Scores and Ranking
Ranking
1
2
Ethical Concerns and Governance
Score
Denmark
Singapore
9.19
9.04
65
and
UAE
Sweden
8.95
8.94
8
9
10
11
Switzerland
Finland
Norway
Qatar
New Zealand
Chile
Germany
12
13
14
Canada
Netherlands
Ireland
15
16
17
Luxembourg
Malaysia
Hong Kong
8.75
8.66
8.37
8.35
8.03
7.65
7.64
7.42
7.33
7.26
7.17
6.89
6.74
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
United Kingdom
Japan
USA
Estonia
Turkey
Belgium
Australia
Austria
Taiwan
France
Poland
Israel
6.70
6.52
6.35
6.32
6.24
5.94
5.83
5.81
5.49
5.43
5.34
5.08
30
31
32
33
34
35
Iceland
Korea
Indonesia
Kazakhstan
Philippines
Portugal
4.96
4.93
4.38
4.35
4.17
4.02
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Mexico
Lithuania
Jordan
Thailand
China Mainland
Latvia
Peru
Colombia
4.00
3
4
5
6
7
3.94
3.50
3.49
3.42
3.29
3.25
3.06
66
2.88
2.65
2.64
2.63
2.63
2.58
2.37
2.29
2.21
2.00
1.87
1.54
44
45
46
Brazil
Romania
Czech Republic
47
48
49
Hungary
Spain
Croatia
50
51
52
53
54
55
South Africa
Greece
India
Italy
Slovak Republic
Russia
56
57
58
59
Bulgaria
Slovenia
Argentina
Ukraine
1.49
1.39
1.04
60
Venezuela
0.79
0.81
4.14 Potential for Innovation
In the category of Potential for Innovation (Table 14), the countries with the highest scores are
Israel, the USA and Switzerland. Israel is ranked first in the Innovative capacity and Scientific
Research Legislation indicators, while Switzerland is first in the Researchers and Scientists
indicators (Appendix, Tables A43-A45). The USA in the three indicators of the category is
ranked second. Germany is ranked
6 th
driven mainly by the Innovative Capacity and Researchers
and Scientists indicators. The lowest ranked countries are Poland (the lowest in Innovative
Capacity), Venezuela (the lowest in Researchers and Scientists indicator) and Bulgaria (last in
Scientific Research Legislation indicator).
Table 14: Potential for Innovation- Scores and Ranking
Potential for
Innovation
Ranking
1
Israel
Score
9.57
2
USA
9.33
3
4
Switzerland
Sweden
9.22
8.00
67
5
6
Denmark
Germany
8.00
7.87
7
8
Netherlands
Singapore
7.72
7.71
9
10
Canada
Ireland
7.40
7.33
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
United Kingdom
Malaysia
Finland
UAE
Luxembourg
Taiwan
Norway
Australia
Qatar
7.10
7.00
6.99
6.69
6.69
6.69
6.68
6.34
6.32
20
21
22
23
24
25
6.25
6.20
6.15
6.04
5.87
5.78
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Austria
Japan
Belgium
France
Hong Kong
Korea
Iceland
New Zealand
Lithuania
Kazakhstan
Portugal
Indonesia
Czech Republic
Estonia
Turkey
India
Thailand
37
38
China Mainland
South Africa
3.84
3.84
39
40
41
42
Philippines
Italy
Latvia
Hungary
3.67
3.59
3.36
3.33
43
44
45
Greece
Chile
Slovenia
3.32
3.16
3.04
68
5.52
5.22
5.00
4.66
4.47
4.43
4.39
4.09
3.94
3.94
3.85
46
47
48
Brazil
3.02
Colombia
Spain
2.98
2.97
49
50
51
Jordan
Argentina
Mexico
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
Croatia
2.91
2.86
2.77
2.06
Ukraine
Russia
Peru
Romania
2.01
1.95
1.76
1.36
Slovak Republic
Poland
Venezuela
1.28
1.08
60
Bulgaria
69
0.85
0.56
5. Illustrative Scores for the countries
The ranking per country is crucial because it allows a comparative assessment of the countries.
However, in order to have a more complete picture it is important to identify also the
performance in each of the categories per country. Thus, a country might have a satisfactory
performance in the ranking of one indicator but when compared with the performance in other
categories can be underperforming. In order to identify how specific indicators for a country are
performing relative to other national-level measures, a disaggregated figure was created. This
disaggregated view is particularly useful and does not depend on what some observers might
consider an inappropriate or arbitrary weighting of the various components in the construction of
an aggregate ranking. The selection of countries was for illustrative purposes. Both countries
with high performance, in terms of sustainable development, and countries which have many
areas for improvement were included. Similarly with the results per indicator, any analyst could
easily adapt the weights, and thus have an updated comparison, taking into account the specific
characteristics of each country.
5.1 USA Scores
The USA, as is illustrated in Figure 23, has a good performance in the categories of Potential for
Innovation and Competitiveness. However, it is obvious that this performance is not aligned with
the environmental categories (Biodiversity/ Ecosystems, Toxic Pollution, Climate Change and
Environmental Justice). Furthermore, the USA has a poor performance (compared to the other
component indicators) in the category of Economic Equality and Purchasing Power, which as
discussed is driven by the Economic Equality. Finally, regarding the categories of Education and
Health, although, the USA seems to have a score which is satisfactory, when combined with the
70
country ranking (Ranked
17 th
and
29 th,
respectively) it becomes obvious that there is room for
significant improvement.
USA
Resource Depletion
Biodiversity/Ecosystems
Potential for Innovation
Ethical Concerns and
7.
Toxic Pollution
6.
Governance
5
4.
Competitiveness
Climate Change
0
Econon ic equality and
Purc iasing Power
Environmental Justice
Rights and Justice
Employment
Peace and Security
Education
Health
Figure 23: USA - Scores per Category
5.2 Norway Scores
Norway has a high score in the categories of Rights and Justice, Peace and Security and
Employment (Figure 24). However, when compared to other categories, it underperforms in the
majority of environmental categories and mainly in the areas of Biodiversity/ Ecosystems, Toxic
Pollution, Climate Change and Environmental Justice. Furthermore, in the area of innovation,
which is a crucial enabler for the overall long term performance, there is room for significant
improvement (indicated also by the
17 th position
in the country ranking).
71
Norway
Resource Depletion
Potential for Innovation
Biodiversity/Ecosystems
8
Ethical Concerns and
Governance
Toxic Pollution
6.
5
4.
Climate Cha nge
Competitiveness
0
Econon ic equality and
Purc hasing Power
Environmen tal Justice
Rights and Justice
Employment
Peace and Security
Education
Health
Figure 24: Norway - Scores per Category
5.3 Switzerland Scores
Switzerland has very good performance in the majority of the categories (Figure 25). The best
score has been achieved in the categories of Education, Health, Peace and Security, Resource
Depletion and Biodiversity/Ecosystems. Furthermore, it should be stated that Switzerland has a
good performance in both enabler categories (Potential for Innovation and Ethical Concerns and
Governance). However, there is significant room for improvement in the areas of Economic
Equality and Purchasing Power and in some environmental categories (Toxic Pollution, Climate
Change and Environmental Justice). In these categories, Switzerland is ranked in the top 10
72
countries; however, compared to the other scores, these are areas which are lagging in terms of
more optimal performance.
Switzerland
Resource Depletion
iodiversity/Ecosystems
Potential for Innovation
8
Ethical Concerns and
Governance
Toxic Pollution
7.
6.
5
4.
Climate Cha nge
Competitiveness
Econon ic equality and
Purc hasing Power
Environmen tal Justice
Rights and Justice
Employment
Peace and Security
Education
Health
Figure 25: Switzerland - Scores per Category
5.4 Sweden Scores
Sweden (Figure 26) has a strong performance in the categories of Health, Peace and Security and
Rights and Justice. Sweden is ranked in the top five positions in the areas of Economic Equality
and Purchasing Power and Climate Change; however, in comparison with the remaining scores,
these are areas that could be further improved.
73
Sweden
Resource Depletion
Potential for Innovation
Ethical Concerns and
Governance
Biodiversity/Ecosystems
Pollution
7.Toxic
6.
5
4.
Competitiveness
Climate Cha ige
2.
0
Econorr ic equality and
Purc hasing Power
Environmen tal Justice
Rights and Justice
Employment
Peace and Security
Education
Health
Figure 26: Sweden - Scores per Category
5.5 Germany Scores
Germany has a strong performance in the categories of Biodiversity/Ecosystems, Health, Peace
and Security and Resource Depletion (Figure 27). The areas with the lowest scores are Economic
Equality and Purchasing power (ranked 1 Ith) and Climate Change (ranked
1 0 th).
Furthermore,
regarding the enablers, in both categories Germany has a good performance, but this can be
further improved taking into account the significance of these factors for the longer-term
improvement of the sustainable development.
74
Germany
Resource Depletion
iodiversity/Ecosystems
Potential for Innovation
Ethical Concerns and
Governance
7.
6.
Toxic Pollution
s
4.
Climate Change
Competitiveness ..
0
Economic equality and
Purchasing Power
Environmental Justice
Rights and Justice
Employment
Peace and Security
Education
Health
Figure 27: Germany - Scores per Category
5.6 Greece Scores
Greece has a low performance in the categories of Employment, Ethical Concerns and
Governance (Figure 28). The fact that the performance in the category of Potential for
Innovation is also not satisfactory creates concerns about the potential to significantly improve
its performance in terms of sustainable development. The performance in the two enablers
(Potential for Innovation, and Ethical Concerns and Governance) affects all the remaining
categories, and if there is no significant improvement in those areas then it will not be possible to
significantly improve in the long-term performance in the remaining categories.
75
Greece
Resource Depletion
Biodiversity/Ecosystems
Potential for Innovation
9.
Ethical Concerns and
Governance
7.
Toxic Pollution
6.
5
4
Climate Cha nge
Competitiveness
0
Econon ic equality and
Purc hasing Power
Environmen tal Justice
Rights and Justice
Employment
Peace and Security
Education
Health
Figure 28: Greece - Scores per Category
5.7 Poland Scores
Poland has a low score in the Potential for Innovation enabler and a relative good score in the
areas of Resource Depletion, and Biodiversity and Ecosystems (Figure 29). As with the case of
Greece, the improvement in the area of innovation is crucial in order to move towards a more
sustainable state. However, the fact that, in terms of education, Poland scores above average
(indicated also by the 23rd position in the ranking) suggests that with specific government
measures, the improvement in the area of innovation would be possible to be achieved. The
focus should be put also on other areas (e.g., environmental, economic equality and purchasing
power, etc.) but the area of Innovation should be a priority.
76
Poland
Resource Depletion
Biodiversity/Ecosystems
Potential for Innovation
8
Ethical Concerns and
Governance
Pollution
7.Toxic
6.
4.
Climate Cha ige
C ompetitiveness
Econon ic equality and
Purc iasing Power
Environmen tal Justice
Rights and Justice
Employment
Peace and Security
Education
Health
Figure 29: Poland - Scores per Category
5.8 Russia Scores
Russia faces .significant issues in terms of Rights and Justice, Environmental Justice, Climate
Change, Ethical Concerns and Governance and Potential for Innovation (Figure 30). The
economy of Russia is based on energy (Gas, Oil) and through this industry it achieves an
adequate score in employment. However, this is not translated in a high score in the area of
Economic Equality and Purchasing Power. It appears that there is a need to further focus on the
areas of justice and governance and create the necessary conditions in order to improve also the
performance on the areas of innovation and economic equality, without of course adversely
affecting the environment.
77
Russia
Resource Depletion
Potential for Innovation
Biodiversity/Ecosystems
8
Ethical Concerns and
Governance
7.
6.
Toxic Pollution
5
4.
Climate Change
Competitiveness
0
Economic equality and
Purchasing Power
Environmental Justice
Rights and Justice
Employment
Peace and Security
Education
Health
Figure 30: Russia - Scores per Category
5.9 South Korea Scores
South Korea achieves an average performance in the areas of Potential for Innovation and
Ethical Concerns and Governance in which it is ranked
2 5 1h
and 3 1st, respectively (Figure 31).
Also, it achieves relatively good performance in the areas of Health and Resource Depletion,
while in the majority of the remaining categories it is around average - with the exception of
Environmental Justice. It is obvious that South Korea has achieved an average performance but
in order to move in to more sustainable development, a clear government strategy is required
which will encourage innovation and will establish the necessary governance and justice
framework.
78
South Korea
Resource Depletion
Potential for Innovation
10.
Biodiversity/Ecosystems
8
Ethical Concerns and
Governance
Toxic Pollution
6.
5
4.
.. Climate Cha ige
Competitiveness
0
Econorr ic equality and
Purc hasing Power
Environmen tal Justice
Rights and Justice
Employment
Peace and Security
Education
Health
Figure 31: South Korea - Scores per Category
5.10 South Africa Scores
South Africa, in contrast with many other examined countries, has an average performance in
some environmental categories (e.g., Biodiversity, Environmental Justice) and in Rights and
Justice categories, but is lagging significantly in the areas of Economic Equality and Purchasing
Power, Health, Employment, Education, Competitiveness and Ethical Concerns and Governance
(Figure 32). Thus, it is obvious that a launch of a comprehensive government roadmap for
change is needed for the case of South Africa in order to move towards a more sustainable state.
79
South Africa
Resource Depletion
Potential for Innovation
10
Biodiversity/Ecosystems
8
Ethical Concerns and
7.
Governance
6.
Toxic Pollution
5
C ompetitiveness
Climate Cha nge
2.
Economric equality and
Purc hasing Power
Environmen tal Justice
Rights and Justice
Employment
Peace and Security
Education
Health
Figure 32: South Africa - Scores per Category
5.11 Priority for Innovation and Ethical Concerns and Governance
As already discussed the areas of Potential for Innovation and Ethical concerns and Governance
are considered as enablers and crucial for all the other categories. What is illustrated both by the
previous illustrative examples and by Figure 33 is the fact that those two enablers are correlated
and thus a government strategy must put equal effort on both elements. Acemoglu and Robinson
(2012), in their seminal work Why Nations Fail, make the point that what they call "extractive
economics"
- undemocratic
and exploitative economies
- eventually do not succeed
economically. It is not possible to innovate if the country does not have a satisfactory
performance in the category of ethical concerns and governance and thus it is not possible in the
80
long term to continue to improve all the identified categories of sustainable development. Thus,
the focus of the governments, of course, should be both on the individual categories (which
could be achieved through their existing specific ministries or government authorities) and on the
enablers (innovation, and the ethics and governance) in order to achieve a significant sustainable
improvement for the society. Of course, the potential for innovation can be viewed broadly to
include technological, institutional, organizational and social innovation (Ashford and Hall,
2011). What Figure 33 shows is the dependence of innovation on ethical concerns and
governance, suggesting that economic growth is mediated through innovation.
Potential for Innovation
10
Switzerland
Germany
9 Netherlands
8Austria
Indonesia
7 -Czech
6
5
4
Greece
lovenia
Ukraine
.
3
0
'
-
-
'
Meico
jE
-...
Finland
Norway
Japan
Sweden
Luxembourg
New Zealand
Turkey Estnia
0
Chile
Colombia
e
-
-~
'
'-
-
-
''
-*-MFrance
Portugal
..
a..
-
2
1
Republic Lithuania
South Africa Thailan
-
"-
Romania
Peru
Spain
-
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0
Ethical Concerns and Governance
0
Economic Equality and Purchasing Power
Figure 33: Potential for Innovation and Ethical Concerns and Governance
81
6. Conclusion
6.1 Final remarks and implications for Government policy
Currently there are various published indexes available that focuses on sustainability. Depending
on the organization responsible for the publication, the majority of them have a different focus
(e.g., on environment, economy and/or social elements). Based on the assessment conducted in
this thesis research, there is no specific index which covers adequately all the elements of
sustainable development. Thus, a proposed framework was created to add value to the existing
indexes by both combining elements from the best approaches and, perhaps most importantly, by
highlighting the importance of the Potential for Innovation and Ethical Concerns and
Governance as enablers in order to achieve a more sustainable future state. The innovation and
ethical considerations are either missing or are not adequately covered in the majority of the
current approaches.
In this thesis, the proposed framework and its constituent indicators were calculated. The main
difference between the proposed framework and the majority of the available indexes is the fact
that no aggregate ranking (among all categories) was produced since there is to uniformly
accepted way to establish specific weights that will be the same for all countries. Each country
has different characteristics, values and aspirations, both in terms of economic development but
also in terms of cultural landscape and social specific factors which should be taken into
consideration in any country's specific assessment, from which policy initiatives might be
fashioned. Rodrik (2007) suggests that each country undergo a process of "self-discovery" rather
than emulate what another country is doing. Thus, although all categories are important, for
specific countries the importance of each category might be different. This is the reason that the
proposal emanating from this thesis is to utilize the scores and rankings in each category and
82
country in order to initiate country specific assessments that are needed when developing
appropriate sustainability strategies/policies for each country. However, although it is recognized
that the publication of the aggregate results are useful in terms of generating global awareness,
this was out of scope for the specific study.
Government and public authorities could utilize both the scores and the rankings in order to
create a thorough analysis which will provide significant insights for the country. Also the
weights, both of the indicators and of the categories, could be adjusted in order to represent
meaningful results for the country. It should be stated that this analysis should be the first step in
order to identify the current state and identify the roots of policy inadequacies in order to create a
policy roadmap in order to achieve sustainable development for the country.
6.2 Limitations of the study and Implications for future research
Although it was possible to conduct an assessment of the current indexes and propose a new
framework, there were specific limitations. The major limitation was related with data issues.
One obvious example pertains to the environmental justice category. Data only from 200 1could
be found. Also, for many countries, there were limited data resulting in a different number of
countries being included in each final category. The publicly available data are restricted,
especially when the issues covered include more qualitative factors, such as ethical concerns,
innovation and other social areas. Thus a global effort in order to focus on the launch and
measurement of such indicators could be useful. This effort could be ideally led by a United
Nations organization assuring both the diversity of the indicators but also a significant number of
countries which will participate.
83
Taking into account also the time limitations it was not possible to expand the study in order to
adapt indicatively the weights and framework for specific countries. This, as discussed, might be
the focus of the future research in order to analyze the data in more depth, identify the reasons
for good or poor performance, and create a country-specific action plan. Furthermore, future
research might focus on the importance of public awareness as a driver, perhaps leading to a
simpler index which could be updated per quarter measuring the progress in the main elements
of sustainable development.
84
References
Acemoglu D. and Robinson J. (2012) Chapter 15: "Understanding Prosperity and Poverty" in
Why Nations Fail: The Origins of power, Prosperity and Poverty (Crown Publishing Group, New
York).
Ashford N. and Hall R. (2011). "Technology, Globalization and Sustainable Development." Yale
University Press.
Ashford N. A. and Miller C. S. (1998). Chemical Exposures: Low Levels and High Stakes, Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Ayres R. U. (1978). "Application of physical principles to economics." Resources, Environment
and Economics: Applications of the Materials/Energy Balance Principle, A. (ed), ed., Wiley,
New York, 37-71.
Baskin L.S., Himes K., et al. (2001). "Hypospadias and Endocrine Disruption: Is there a
Connection?" Environmental Health Perspectives 109 (11):1175-1183.
Beal D., Rueda-Sabater E., (2014), "Building Well-Being into National Strategies- The 2014
Sustainable Economic Development Assessment", The Boston Consulting Group, February
2014.
Beal D., Rueda-Sabater E., Santo T.E. (2012), "From Wealth to Well Being- Introducing the
BCG Sustainable Economic Development Assessment",
The Boston Consulting Group,
November 2012.
Carson R. (1962). Silent Spring, Houghton Mifflin Company, New York.
Cash, D.W., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N.M., Eckley, N., Guston, D.H., Jaer, J.,Mitchell,
R.B., (2003). "Knowledge systems for sustainable development". Proc. Natl.Acad. Sci. 100 (14),
8086-8091.
85
Ebioli. F. (2013). "Envisioning future sustainability: the FEEM SI approach", International
Conference on Methodologies and Indicators for Green Growth Measurement, FEEM, Milan,
12th November 2013.
EIRIS Country Sustainability Ratings (2012). "EIRIS Country Sustainability Ratings", Leaflet
downloaded at www.eiris.org.
EPI (2012)."2012 EPI. Environmental Performance Index andPilot Trend Environmental
Performance Index", Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, Yale University and Center
for International Earth Science Information Network, Columbia University.
Esty D., Porter M., (2001), "Ranking National Environmental Regulation and Performance: A
Leading Indicator of Future Competitiveness?" in The Global Competitiveness Report 2001
(Michael E. Porter and Jeffrey Sachs, et al.), New York: Oxford University Press (2001).
Eurostat (2013), "Eurostat News release Euroindicators- August 2013 Euro area unemployment
rate at 12.0%, EU28 at 10.9%", 140/2013 - 1 October 2013.
Happy Planet Index (2012). "The Happy Planet Index: 2012 Report. A global Index of
sustainable Well-Being" nef, the new economics foundation.
Hardi, P., and Zdan, T. (1997)."Assessing Sustainable Development: Principles in Practice." The
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), Manitoba.
Hardin, G. (1968). "Tragedy of the Commons." Science, 162, 1243-1248.
Holden Meg, (2013), "Sustainability indicator systems within urban governance: Usability
analysis of sustainability indicator systems as boundary objects", Ecological indicators, 32, 2013,
89-96
IMD (2013), " IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook" Lausanne, Switzerland.
86
INCRA (2012). "Country Ratings Report. INCRA- An International Non-Profit Credit Rating
Agency" Bertelsmann Stiftung and Bertelsmann Foundation, November 2012
International Climate Change Task Force. (2005). Meeting the Climate Change Challenge:
Recommendations of the International Climate Change Taskforce. London, Institute for Public
Policy Research.
McCally, M. (1999). Life Support: The Environment and Human Health, The MIT Press,
Cambridge.
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., and Behrens, W. W. (1972).The Limits to
Growth, Potomac Associates, New York.
Pronk, J., and ul Haq, M. (1992)."Sustainable Development: From Concept to Action. The
Hague Report." United Nations Development Program, New York.
Rodrik Dani. (2007). Chapter 4: "Industrial Policy for the Twenty-first Century, in One
Economics: Many Recipes" Princeton University Press, pp. 99-152.
Schmidheiny, S. (1992). "Changing Course: A Global Business Perspective on Development and
the Environment", The MIT Press, Cambridge.
Solomon, G. M., and Schettler, T. (1999). "Environmental Endocrine Disruption." Life Support:
TheEnvironment and Human Health, M. McCally, ed., The MIT Press, Cambridge, 147-162.
Solow, R. M. (1993). "Economics of the Environment: Selected Readings." R. a. D. Dorfman, N.
S., ed., W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 179-187.
UNEP (1982c). The state of the Environment, 1972-1982, Nairobi, UNEP.
Van de Kerk G., Manuel A. (2012). "Sustainable Society Index 2012", Sustainable Society
Foundation.
87
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED).(1987). Our Common Future,
Oxford, University Press, Oxford.
World Economic Forum.(2013). "The Global Competitiveness Report2013-2014", Geneva,
2013.
www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org Retrieved 4/4/2014.
www.socialprogressimperative.org Retrieved 4/4/2014.
88
Appendix
Source: World Economic Forum (2013).
Figure Al: Global Competitiveness Index Pillars
Social sustainability pillar
SO1 Income Gini index*
S02 Youth unemployment*
S03 Access to sanitation**f
S04 Access to improved drinking water*'
S05 Access to healthcared
S06 Social safety net protection
S07 Extent of informal economy
S08 Social mobility
SO9 Vulnerable employment*
89
Environmental sustainability pillar
S10
S11
S12
S13
Stingency of environmental regulation*
Enforcement of environmental regulationo
Terrestrial biome protection*
No. of ratified intemational environmental treaties*
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
Agricultural water intensity*
C0 2 intensity*
Fish stocks overexploited'gg
Forest cover change*
Particulate matter (25) concentration*(og)
Quality of the natural environment
Source: World Economic Forum (2013).
Figure A2: Social and Economic sustainability pillars
Table Al: Description and Source of indicators
Areas and
Indicators
Source
Description
IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook
IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook
Equal distribution of income scale: 0 (absolute equality) to 100 (absolute inequ
GDP PPP per capita- US$
Percentage of household incomes going to lowest 10% of households
Unemployment
Youth Unemployment
Labour Relations
Corporate Values
IMD World
Percentage of labor force
Percentage of youth labor force (under the age of 25)
Labor relations are generally productive
Corporate values take into account the values of employees
Basic Infrastructure
Total infrastructure
Large corporations
Small and medium size corporations
IMD World
IMD World
IMD World
IMD World
Education
Quality of the educational system
University Education
Pupil-teacher ratio
Illiteracy (%)
IMD World
IMD World
IMD World
Economic equality and purchasing power
Gini index
GDP per capita
Income distribution- Lowest 10%
IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook
Employment
Competitiveness Yearbook
Competitiveness Yearbook
Competitiveness Yearbook
IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook
IMD World
IMD World
Health
Life expectancy at birth
Health infrastructure meets the needs of society
Mortality rate, under age 5
Peace and Security
Political stability and absence of violence/terrorism
Murders
Personal security and private property rights
IMD
Competitiveness Yearbook
Competitiveness Yearbook
Competitiveness Yearbook
Competitiveness Yearbook
Competitiveness Yearbook
Competitiveness Yearbook
Competitiveness Yearbook
World Competitiveness Yearbook
IMD World
IMD World
IMD
Competitiveness Yearbook
Competitiveness Yearbook
World Competitiveness Yearbook
IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook
UNODC
IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook
Basic Infrastructure
Total infrastructure (Basic, Technological, Scientific)
Large corporations are efficient by international standards
Small and medium-size enterprises are efficient by international standards
The educational system meets the needs of a competitive economy
University education meets the needs of a competitive economy
Ratio of students to teaching staff -Secondary Education
Adult (over 15 years) illiteracy rate as a percentage of population
Average Estimate
Health infrastructure meets the needs of society
Under five mortality rate per 1000 live births
The risk of political instability is very low
UNODC Homicide
Personal security and private property rights are adequately protected
Rights and Jutice
Civil liberties
Political rights
Justice
Equal rights
Social cohesion
IMD
IMD
IMD
Freedom House
Freedom House
World Competitiveness Yearbook
World Competitiveness Yearbook
World Competitiveness Yearbook
90
Civil liberties
Poltical Rights
Justice is fairly administered
Equal opportunity legislation in your economy encourages economic developrr
Social cohesion is improving (survey based)
Environmental hastke
Environmental protection
Esty D. And Porter M. (2001)
Climate Change
C02 Emissions
Green Technologies
Renewable Energy
7
IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook
IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook
IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook
Toxic Pollution
Air pollution
Water quality
Access to Sanitation
Waste generation per capita
OECD
Environmental Regulatory Regime index
Per one million of GDP
Renewable technologies are quickly turned into competitive advantages
Share of renewables in total energy requirements, %
Environmental Performance Index
Environmental Performance Index
Environmental Performance Index
Factbook: Econ., Env. and Social Statistics
Air Quality
Access to drinking water
Access to Sanitation
MSW Generation Per Capita
Environmental Performance Index
Biodiversity and Habitat index
Bodiversity/Ecsystems
Biodiversity
Resource Depletion
Water use intensity
Change in Forest cover
Energy use
Paper and cardboard recycling rate
Potential for
UN Millenium development Goals Database
Environmental Performance Index
UN Millenium development Goals Database
IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook
Innovation
IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook
IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook
IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook
Innovative capacity of firms
Scientific research legislation
Researchers and scientists
Ethjal concers and
Bribery and corruption
Government effectiveness
Transparency of government policymaking
Social Responsibility
Proportion of total water resources used
Change in Forest Cover
Energy use (kg oil equivalent) per $1000 GDP
Paper and cardboard recycling rate
Innovative capacity of firms is high in your economy
Laws relating to scientific research do encourage innovation
Researchers and scientists are attracted to your country
_g__e__ance
IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook
IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook
IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook
IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook
Bribing and corruption do not exist
Government decisions are effectively implemented
Transparency of government policy is satisfactory
Social responsibility of business leaders is high
Table A2: Water Use Intensity- Resource Depletion Category
Ranking
Water use
intensity
Score
1
Iceland
25.0
2
Colombia
25.0
3
Croatia
25.0
4
Norway
25.0
5
Brazil
25.0
6
Venezuela
25.0
7
Peru
8
Slovenia
24.9
24.9
9
Latvia
24.9
10
New Zealand
24.9
11
Russian Federation
24.9
12
Sweden
24.9
13
Malaysia
24.9
14
Luxembourg
24.9
15
Finland
24.9
16
Slovakia
24.8
17
Chile
24.8
18
Argentina
24.7
91
19
20
Romania
Australia
24.7
21
Austria
24.7
22
Switzerland
24.6
23
Hungary
24.6
24
Indonesia
24.6
25
Netherlands
24.3
26
United Kingdom
24.2
27
Denmark
24.2
28
Lithuania
24.2
29
Estonia
24.2
30
Portugal
24.1
31
Greece
24.1
32
Thailand
24.0
33
Czech Republic
24.0
24.7
34
Ukraine
24.0
35
France
23.9
36
United States
23.9
37
Mexico
23.8
38
Philippines
23.7
39
Kazakhstan
23.7
40
China
23.6
41
Turkey
23.5
42
Japan
23.5
43
Poland
23.5
44
Italy
23.2
45
South Africa
23.2
46
Germany
23.1
47
Bulgaria
23.0
48
India
22.6
49
Spain
22.6
50
Korea, Republic of
22.3
51
Belgium
21.9
52
Israel
18.6
53
Jordan
18.3
54
Qatar
0.0
92
Table A3: Change in Forest Cover- Resource Depleti n Category
Change in Forest
Ranking
Cover
Score
1
Australia
25.0
2
Chile
25.0
3
Hungary
25.0
4
Ireland
25.0
5
New Zealand
25.0
6
South Africa
25.0
7
Bulgaria
24.6
8
Kazakhstan
24.4
9
Croatia
24.1
10
Poland
24.0
11
Italy
23.9
12
Japan
23.9
13
Turkey
23.8
14
Switzerland
23.8
15
Taiwan
23.8
16
Czech Republic
23.6
17
Romania
23.6
18
Slovenia
23.6
19
Spain
23.6
20
United Kingdom
23.6
21
France
23.5
22
India
23.4
23
Russia
23.4
24
Korea
23.4
25
Luxembourg
23.4
26
Netherlands
23.4
27
Venezuela
23.4
28
29
Norway
Peru
23.3
23.3
30
Ukraine
23.3
31
Germany
23.3
32
Philippines
23.3
33
Colombia
23.2
34
China
23.2
35
36
Thailand
23.2
Belgium
23.1
37
Lithuania
23.1
93
38
39
Greece
Slovakia
23.1
40
Austria
23.0
41
Mexico
23.0
42
Denmark
23.0
43
Canada
22.9
44
Sweden
22.9
45
United States of America
46
Finland
22.9
22.8
47
Brazil
22.8
48
Estonia
22.8
49
Indonesia
22.7
50
Portugal
22.7
51
Latvia
22.6
52
Malaysia
22.6
53
54
Argentina
22.5
Iceland
0.0
55
Israel
0.0
56
Jordan
0.0
57
Qatar
0.0
58
Singapore
0.0
59
UAE
0.0
23.1
Table A4: Energy Use - Resource Depletion Category
Ranking
Energy use
Score
1
Peru
25.0
2
Colombia
24.8
3
Switzerland
24.5
4
Ireland
24.4
5
United Kingdom
23.8
6
Greece
23.6
7
Portugal
23.6
8
9
Spain
Italy
23.6
23.5
10
Denmark
23.3
11
Austria
22.9
12
Turkey
22.9
13
Israel
22.8
14
Germany
22.7
94
22.5
16
Croatia
Luxembourg
17
Philippines
22.5
18
Chile
22.4
15
22.5
19
Singapore
22.4
20
Japan
22.3
21
Mexico
22.3
22
Brazil
21.7
23
Lithuania
21.7
24
Netherlands
21.7
25
France
21.6
26
Slovenia
21.4
27
Norway
21.3
28
Hungary
20.8
29
Latvia
20.8
30
Romania
20.8
31
Poland
20.7
32
Sweden
20.3
33
Argentina
20.3
34
Australia
20.1
35
Slovakia
20.1
36
Belgium
19.7
37
United States
19.7
38
New Zealand
19.7
39
Czech Republic
19.3
40
Qatar
19.0
41
India
18.9
42
Malaysia
18.8
43
18.7
44
Korea, Republic of
United Arab
Emirates
45
Bulgaria
17.7
46
Canada
17.4
47
Finland
17.0
48
Thailand
16.8
49
Indonesia
16.7
50
Jordan
16.5
51
Venezuela
15.6
52
Estonia
15.3
53
China
14.3
95
18.3
54
South Africa
13.0
55
Russian Federation
9.6
56
Kazakhstan
5.4
57
Ukraine
2.5
58
Iceland
0.0
Table A5: Paper and cardboard recycling rate - Resource Depletion Category
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Recycling
Korea
Netherlands
Finland
Portugal
Switzerland
Lithuania
Ireland
Germany
Poland
Sweden
Luxembourg
Slovenia
United
Kingdom
Estonia
Romania
Austria
Japan
Australia
Spain
USA
New Zealand
Taiwan
Belgium
Hong Kong
Slovak
Republic
Norway
Denmark
France
Italy
Czech
Republic
96
Score
25.0
23.8
22.4
21.5
21.5
21.3
19.8
19.4
19.4
19.2
18.4
17.9
17.9
16.7
16.7
16.6
16.6
16.6
16.3
16.3
16.0
15.9
15.8
15.3
15.1
15.0
14.6
14.2
13.5
12.7
31
12.2
32
Bulgiaria
Hungary
33
Canada
10.3
34
Turkey
9.0
35
36
Brazil
Jordan
8.7
8.5
37
38
Greece
Croatia
8.0
7.6
39
40
Colombia
South Africa
7.6
6.8
41
Malaysia
4.8
42
Russia
3.1
43
Iceland
0.1
44
Mexico
0.0
45
Kazakhstan
0.0
11.4
Table A6: Air Pollution - Toxic Pollution Category
Ranking
Air pollution
Scores
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Argentina
Venezuela
Australia
Finland
Iceland
Ireland
New Zealand
Norway
Singapore
Portugal
Canada
Brazil
Spain
Sweden
Chile
United States of America
Latvia
Estonia
Kazakhstan
United Kingdom
Colombia
97
25.00
24.81
24.60
24.60
24.60
24.60
24.60
24.60
24.60
24.48
24.45
24.38
24.30
24.22
24.12
24.00
23.96
23.94
23.85
23.82
23.59
22
South Africa
23.38
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Russia
Denmark
Malaysia
France
Mexico
UAE
Greece
Lithuania
Japan
Ukraine
Turkey
Peru
23.37
22.89
22.19
21.85
21.12
20.93
20.74
20.50
20.41
20.40
20.18
20.06
35
Jordan
19.70
36
37
38
39
Luxembourg
Philippines
Italy
Israel
19.54
19.40
19.19
18.79
40
Germany
18.46
41
42
43
44
45
46
Slovenia
Bulgaria
Qatar
Croatia
Switzerland
Austria
18.35
18.07
17.94
17.90
17.86
17.83
47
Taiwan
17.81
48
49
50
51
52
53
Netherlands
Indonesia
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Poland
Hungary
17.56
17.48
17.07
16.80
16.06
15.91
54
Belgium
15.77
55
56
57
58
Romania
Thailand
Korea
India
15.49
15.11
13.43
1.37
59
China
0.00
98
Table A7: Water Quality - Toxic Pollution Cate ory
Ranking
Water Quality
Scores
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Hungary
Iceland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Qatar
Singapore
Slovakia
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
United Kingdom
Spain
Ireland
Czech Republic
Canada
Greece
Turkey
Portugal
UAE
Malaysia
Slovenia
Bulgaria
Argentina
United States of America
Estonia
99
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
24.60
23.78
23.50
23.43
23.08
22.94
22.59
22.30
22.02
22.01
21.32
19.86
17.85
17.82
17.03
39
Croatia
Chile
40
Latvia
16.51
41
42
43
Poland
Ukraine
Korea
15.25
15.12
14.58
44
Brazil
13.23
45
46
47
48
49
50
Russia
Jordan
Thailand
Kazakhstan
Mexico
Colombia
12.76
11.00
10.40
8.84
8.31
6.47
51
Venezuela
6.45
52
53
54
55
56
Philippines
Lithuania
China
India
South Africa
5.90
5.47
5.20
5.15
5.02
57
Romania
2.05
58
59
Peru
Indonesia
0.54
0.00
38
16.84
Table A8: Access to Sanitation - Toxic Pollution Category
Scores
Access to Sanitation
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Iceland
Israel
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
100
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
16
Portugal
25.00
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Qatar
Singapore
Slovenia
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
United Kingdom
Hungary
Czech Republic
Spain
Canada
Slovakia
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
24.97
24.94
23.94
23.63
29
United States of America
22.94
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Ireland
Chile
Greece
Croatia
Jordan
Estonia
UAE
Kazakhstan
Argentina
Malaysia
Ukraine
Thailand
Turkey
Venezuela
Poland
New Zealand
Lithuania
Mexico
Brazil
Latvia
Colombia
Italy
Philippines
20.79
20.07
19.86
18.86
18.59
18.27
17.57
17.17
15.74
15.00
13.62
12.93
11.25
11.18
10.33
9.69
9.11
8.34
7.06
6.43
6.32
5.55
5.36
53
South Africa
5.32
54
Romania
4.92
101
55
Peru
4.81
56
57
58
59
Russia
China
Indonesia
India
4.58
3.62
2.64
0.00
Table A9: Waste generation per capita - Toxic Pollution Category
Waste generation per
Ranking
capita
Scores
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
China
Poland
Slovak Republic
Czech Republic
Mexico
Korea
Canada
Turkey
Japan
South Africa
Greece
Russian Federation
Portugal
Hungary
Belgium
Finland
Sweden
France
Italy
Iceland
Germany
Austria
United Kingdom
Spain
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Switzerland
Denmark
United States
Ireland
Norway
102
25.00
19.71
18.98
18.25
16.62
15.88
14.60
14.23
14.05
13.87
13.14
13.14
12.96
12.04
11.68
11.13
11.13
9.67
9.12
8.76
8.58
7.85
7.85
7.30
6.39
4.38
3.65
2.19
1.46
0.01
0.00
Table A10: C02 Emissions - Climate Change
C02
Ranking
Emissions
Score
1
Switzerland
33.33
2
Norway
33.08
3
4
5
6
Sweden
France
Denmark
Iceland
32.92
32.26
32.08
32.03
7
Brazil
31.53
8
Hong Kong
31.52
9
10
11
Austria
Ireland
Spain
31.50
31.43
31.31
12
Italy
31.30
13
14
15
16
31.18
31.05
31.01
30.99
17
18
19
20
Luxembourg
Japan
Portugal
Colombia
United
Kingdom
New Zealand
Belgium
Germany
21
22
Netherlands
Finland
30.65
30.48
30.02
23
Singapore
29.92
24
25
26
27
Peru
Greece
Australia
Israel
29.90
29.66
29.29
29.19
28
Chile
29.05
29
30
31
32
Croatia
Slovenia
Canada
Latvia
29.00
28.97
28.84
28.77
33
Turkey
28.30
34
Lithuania
28.24
35
36
USA
Hungary
28.16
27.95
37
Philippines
27.94
103
30.95
30.85
30.74
39
40
41
Slovak
Republic
Mexico
Romania
Argentina
42
Venezuela
27.59
26.60
26.57
26.46
43
Qatar
25.68
44
45
25.10
24.88
46
47
48
UAE
Korea
Czech
Republic
Indonesia
Taiwan
49
50
51
52
Poland
Jordan
Malaysia
Thailand
23.19
22.22
21.42
53
54
Bulgaria
India
South Africa
Estonia
18.42
17.85
17.77
17.42
Russia
China
Mainland
Kazakhstan
Ukraine
16.31
38
55
56
57
58
59
60
27.60
24.51
24.45
23.53
20.90
13.11
6.87
0.00
Table All: Green Technologies - Climate Change
Green
Ranking
Technologies
1
Denmark
2
Iceland
Sweden
3
Germany
4
Portugal
5
6
Japan
UAE
7
8
Malaysia
Spain
9
Ireland
10
Austria
11
12
Israel
13
Korea
104
Score
33.33
28.51
26.59
26.29
26.26
25.57
25.15
24.72
23.44
22.86
22.83
22.64
22.63
14
15
16
17
18
Norway
19
Canada
22.00
21.87
21.51
20
Belgium
21.38
21
22
Singapore
Finland
20.48
20.39
23
Italy
20.21
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Greece
Qatar
Thailand
New Zealand
Poland
Lithuania
France
USA
United Kingdom
19.96
19.76
33
34
Czech Republic
Indonesia
17.90
16.92
16.58
15.83
15.83
35
India
15.75
36
Mexico
37
38
Hong Kong
Australia
39
40
41
42
China Mainland
Slovenia
Estonia
Turkey
15.73
15.48
15.24
14.37
14.35
14.33
14.13
43
Brazil
13.33
44
45
46
47
Chile
Jordan
Philippines
South Africa
13.31
12.84
48
49
50
51
52
53
Slovak Republic
Colombia
Latvia
Peru
Kazakhstan
Croatia
Ukraine
11.53
11.39
10.78
10.16
9.60
9.58
9.45
54
Netherlands
Switzerland
Luxembourg
Taiwan
105
22.49
22.34
22.30
19.60
19.43
19.20
18.44
12.35
12.31
55
56
Hungary
Bulgaria
8.52
6.64
57
58
Argentina
Romania
4.43
3.97
59
60
Russia
Venezuela
0.52
0.00
Table A12: Renewable Energy - C imate Change
Renewable
Ranking
Energy
1
Iceland
2
Brazil
Philippines
3
New Zealand
4
Norway
5
6
Latvia
7
Indonesia
8
Sweden
9
Austria
10
India
Finland
11
Peru
12
13
Portugal
14
Chile
15
Colombia
16
Denmark
17
Thailand
18
Switzerland
19
Canada
20
Romania
21
Lithuania
22
Estonia
23
Slovenia
24
Croatia
25
Spain
26
China Mainland
27
Turkey
South Africa
28
Italy
29
Germany
30
Venezuela
31
106
Score
33.33
17.73
16.08
15.75
14.57
14.38
13.93
13.72
10.83
10.62
10.24
10.17
9.40
8.88
8.51
8.20
7.94
7.68
6.89
6.73
6.20
6.14
5.99
5.36
4.76
4.68
4.47
4.31
4.28
4.01
3.97
32
Mexico
3.96
33
34
Bulgaria
France
3.24
35
36
Slovak Republic
Greece
37
38
Hungary
Argentina
39
Poland
40
41
Czech Republic
USA
42
Australia
43
44
45
46
Malaysia
Israel
Ireland
Belgium
2.54
2.28
2.22
2.20
2.03
1.84
1.69
47
48
Netherlands
United Kingdom
1.51
1.35
49
50
51
52
Japan
Luxembourg
Russia
Ukraine
1.35
1.27
1.02
0.80
53
54
55
56
Jordan
Taiwan
Kazakhstan
Korea
57
Singapore
0.75
0.49
0.40
0.28
0.25
58
Hong Kong
0.16
59
60
UAE
Qatar
0.01
3.22
3.14
3.13
3.08
2.91
2.90
0.00
Table A13: Civil Liberties - Rights and Justice
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Civil liberties
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech
Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
107
Score
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
10
11
12
13
14
France
Germany
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Japan
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovakia
Slovenia
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25
Spain
25.00
26
27
25.00
25.00
28
29
30
31
Sweden
Switzerland
United
Kingdom
United States
Argentina
Brazil
32
Bulgaria
33
34
35
36
Croatia
Greece
Hungary
Israel
37
38
Korea
Latvia
39
40
41
42
Romania
South Africa
Taiwan
India
43
44
45
46
Mexico
Peru
Philippines
Ukraine
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
47
48
Colombia
Indonesia
10.00
10.00
49
Malaysia
10.00
50
Singapore
10.00
108
25.00
25.00
20.00
20.00
10.001
51
52
Thailand
Turkey
53
54
Jordan
Kazakhstan
55
56
57
58
Qatar
Russia
Venezuela
China
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
0.00
59
UAE
0.00
10.00
5.00
Table A14: Political Rights - Rig hts and Justice
Political
Ranking
Rights
Score
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Croatia
Czech
Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
109
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
29
25.00
33
34
35
36
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
United
Kingdom
United States
Argentina
Brazil
Bulgaria
37
Greece
20.83
38
India
20.83
39
40
41
42
Indonesia
Korea
Latvia
Peru
43
Romania
44
45
46
South Africa
Colombia
Mexico
47
48
Philippines
Turkey
49
50
51
52
Malaysia
Singapore
Thailand
Ukraine
20.83
20.83
20.83
20.83
20.83
20.83
16.67
16.67
16.67
16.67
12.50
12.50
53
Venezuela
8.33
54
55
56
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Qatar
4.17
4.17
4.17
57
58
Russia
UAE
4.17
4.17
59
China
0.00
30
31
32
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
20.83
20.83
20.83
12.50
12.50
Table A15: Justice - Rights and Justice
Ranking
Justice
Score
1
Denmark
30.00
2
Norway
28.60
28.58
3
Sweden
28.10
Finland
4
5
Singapore
27.29
27.09
6
Canada
27.04
7
United
110
Kingdom
8
Switzerland
26.80
9
10
Australia
Hong Kong
26.80
26.42
11
Netherlands
26.26
12
Germany
25.98
13
14
Ireland
New Zealand
25.40
25.27
15
UAE
25.15
16
17
18
Luxembourg
France
Japan
24.53
24.23
24.06
19
20
USA
Israel
23.62
23.48
21
22
Qatar
Iceland
23.17
22.54
23
24
Belgium
Austria
22.48
21.29
25
Malaysia
21.28
26
27
28
29
30
31
Thailand
South Africa
Chile
Taiwan
Estonia
Poland
18.78
18.45
18.19
17.77
17.44
16.98
32
33
India
Korea
16.39
16.07
34
35
36
37
38
Jordan
Latvia
Lithuania
15.32
39
Republic
13.29
40
41
Greece
Romania
Philippines
Kazakhstan
13.20
12.71
12.44
42
43
44
45
46
47
Hungary
Brazil
Czech
14.67
13.71
13.55
13.31
Indonesia
Croatia
Turkey
12.43
12.23
12.10
10.81
China
10.03
111
Mainland
48
Mexico
9.67
49
50
Spain
Slovenia
9.18
8.38
51
Italy
8.32
52
53
54
Argentina
Colombia
Russia
55
Portugal
7.91
7.53
6.52
5.10
56
Peru
3.85
57
58
Slovak
Republic
Bulgaria
3.50
3.00
59
Ukraine
1.23
60
Venezuela
0.00
Table A16: Equal Rights - Rig ts and Justice
Ranking Equal rights Score
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Norway
Sweden
UAE
Canada
Singapore
Iceland
Finland
Ireland
Malaysia
Denmark
Qatar
Taiwan
Hong Kong
Israel
Switzerland
Chile
USA
Australia
Japan
Netherlands
New Zealand
Philippines
Kazakhstan
Thailand
112
10.00
9.57
9.43
9.16
9.02
8.95
8.93
8.90
8.70
8.62
8.57
8.38
8.10
8.06
8.05
7.96
7.89
7.73
7.70
7.69
7.63
7.43
7.42
7.36
26
27
28
United
Kingdom
Mexico
Luxembourg
Belgium
7.08
7.05
6.91
6.85
29
Peru
6.63
30
31
32
Turkey
Brazil
Lithuania
6.63
6.59
6.55
33
India
6.49
34
35
36
Poland
France
Latvia
6.27
6.24
6.18
37
38
Colombia
Indonesia
6.07
6.06
39
40
41
42
Croatia
Spain
Portugal
Estonia
6.04
6.01
5.93
5.87
43
5.72
45
46
Germany
China
Mainland
Czech
Republic
Greece
47
48
Korea
Ukraine
5.54
5.13
49
50
51
52
5.11
5.05
5.02
4.91
53
54
Jordan
Romania
Austria
Slovenia
Slovak
Republic
Argentina
55
Hungary
4.62
56
Bulgaria
4.61
57
Italy
3.92
58
Russia
3.66
59
South Africa
2.89
60
Venezuela
0.00
25
44
113
5.68
5.64
5.63
4.85
4.70
Table A17: Social Cohesion - Rights and Justice
Social
Ranking
Cohesion
Score
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
UAE
Qatar
Brazil
Canada
Malaysia
Norway
Philippines
Kazakhstan
Sweden
Taiwan
Chile
Singapore
Israel
Peru
Denmark
Mexico
Ireland
Switzerland
Japan
Lithuania
Finland
New Zealand
Australia
Iceland
Turkey
Netherlands
India
Indonesia
Austria
Colombia
Luxembourg
Jordan
USA
Latvia
Thailand
Hong Kong
China
Mainland
Germany
114
10.00
9.34
8.37
8.10
8.04
8.03
7.90
7.83
7.42
6.94
6.93
6.80
6.66
6.52
6.51
6.49
6.28
6.28
6.23
6.09
6.06
6.02
6.00
5.95
5.89
5.86
5.75
5.74
5.66
5.64
5.63
5.62
5.39
5.08
4.99
4.95
4.94
4.88
Estonia
United
Kingdom
Romania
Belgium
Czech
Republic
4.82 1
4.10
49
50
Korea
Slovak
Republic
Slovenia
Poland
South Africa
Russia
France
3.89
3.62
3.24
3.14
3.09
51
Italy
2.99
52
Ukraine
2.83
53
Hungary
2.80
54
55
56
57
58
Croatia
Greece
Portugal
Spain
Bulgaria
2.71
2.32
2.24
2.01
1.94
59
60
Argentina
Venezuela
0.00
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
4.78
4.26
4.18
4.13
3.90
1.62
Table A18: Political Stability - Peace and Security
Political
Ranking
1
2
Stability
Denmark
Norway
Score
45.00
3
Switzerland
44.77
44.47
4
5
6
Sweden
Luxembourg
Canada
42.84
41.81
41.73
7
8
Finland
New Zealand
41.34
40.46
9
10
Germany
United Kingdom
40.07
39.95
11
12
13
Austria
Singapore
Chile
39.71
39.45
14
Qatar
38.62
115
39.43
USA
38.25
16
UAE
38.09
17
Ireland
37.33
18
Mexico
37.33
19
20
21
Netherlands
France
Australia
36.40
35.86
34.69
22
23
Brazil
Hong Kong
33.96
33.63
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
China Mainland
Taiwan
Philippines
Turkey
Malaysia
Estonia
Slovak Republic
Japan
Lithuania
32.25
31.67
30.27
30.24
29.84
29.45
28.46
33
34
35
Colombia
Poland
Kazakhstan
26.78
26.48
26.37
36
37
38
39
Spain
Belgium
Israel
Peru
26.31
25.86
25.55
25.50
40
41
42
Czech Republic
Croatia
Russia
43
44
45
46
Latvia
Indonesia
India
Korea
47
48
Portugal
South Africa
25.00
24.37
23.18
22.92
22.66
22.62
22.49
22.07
20.80
49
50
51
52
Jordan
Romania
Hungary
Greece
20.63
18.38
17.05
14.93
53
54
55
Argentina
Thailand
Iceland
14.21
12.68
15
116
27.90
26.88
12.58
10.84
56
Italy
57
Bulgaria
8.84
58
59
Slovenia
Ukraine
6.16
5.32
60
Venezuela
0.00
Table A19: Murders - Peace and Security
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Homicides
Hong Kong
Singapore
Japan
Switzerland
Indonesia
Luxembourg
Slovenia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany
Spain
UAE
Austria
Sweden
Netherlands
New Zealand
Italy
Iceland
Ireland
Qatar
United Kingdom (England and
Wales)
China
Portugal
Australia
Croatia
Poland
France
Hungary
Canada
Romania
Greece
Bulgaria
Slovakia
117
Score
10.00
9.98
9.98
9.92
9.92
9.88
9.88
9.88
9.88
9.87
9.87
9.87
9.87
9.86
9.86
9.86
9.85
9.85
9.85
9.85
9.84
9.83
9.82
9.81
9.80
9.79
9.79
9.74
9.71
9.71
9.69
9.67
9.66
34
9.65
35
36
Jordan
Belgium
Israel
37
Finland
9.57
9.64
9.61
38
Norway
9.55
39
40
41
42
Malaysia
Korea
Latvia
Taiwan
9.55
9.47
9.36
9.34
43
44
45
46
Turkey
India
Chile
United States of America
9.32
9.28
9.23
9.01
47
48
Thailand
Estonia
8.99
8.97
49
50
51
52
53
54
Ukraine
Philippines
Argentina
Lithuania
Kazakhstan
Russian Federation
8.86
8.85
8.82
8.63
8.10
7.90
55
56
57
58
Peru
Brazil
Mexico
South Africa
7.75
5.21
4.78
3.16
59
Colombia
2.66
60
Venezuela
0.00
Table A20: Personal Security - Peace and Security
Personal
Ranking
Security
Score
1
2
Finland
Denmark
45.00
3
Singapore
43.69
4
5
Australia
Germany
42.65
42.31
6
Norway
42.27
7
8
Switzerland
Canada
9
10
Hong Kong
Sweden
42.27
42.06
41.91
41.62
118
44.46
11
12
13
14
Netherlands
United Kingdom
Ireland
Luxembourg
41.19
40.94
40.94
40.70
15
UAE
40.69
16
17
18
19
Israel
Japan
New Zealand
Belgium
40.46
40.12
39.99
39.75
20
21
USA
Qatar
39.35
38.69
22
23
24
25
Iceland
Taiwan
Austria
France
37.08
36.88
36.83
36.75
26
Portugal
36.17
27
28
29
30
31
32
Spain
Latvia
Chile
Malaysia
Poland
Jordan
33
34
35
36
37
Thailand
Estonia
Czech Republic
Lithuania
India
35.00
34.93
34.87
34.44
33.97
33.69
33.31
33.17
31.40
30.70
30.68
38
39
Turkey
Italy
30.61
30.38
40
41
42
43
44
Greece
Slovenia
Korea
Indonesia
Philippines
30.09
45
46
47
Croatia
Slovak Republic
Kazakhstan
26.61
26.03
25.35
48
Hungary
25.02
49
50
Romania
Colombia
23.64
23.16
51
South Africa
22.43
119
29.51
28.65
27.61
26.74
52
53
54
55
56
Brazil
China Mainland
Mexico
Bulgaria
Peru
57
58
59
Russia
Argentina
Ukraine
60
Venezuela
Table A21: Life Expectancy
Ranking
Life
expectancy
19.84
19.72
18.35
16.41
14.82
11.97
9.42
7.92
0.00
-
Healt h
Score
1
2
Japan
Hong Kong
3
4
Switzerland
Australia
25.00
24.50
24.09
23.68
5
Italy
23.68
6
Iceland
23.59
7
8
Israel
France
23.59
23.43
9
10
Spain
Sweden
23.34
23.34
11
Norway
23.10
12
23.01
22.93
20
21
Singapore
Canada
Austria
Netherlands
New Zealand
Ireland
Korea
Germany
United
Kingdom
Finland
22.27
22.10
22
23
24
Luxembourg
Belgium
Greece
22.10
22.02
22.02
25
Portugal
21.77
26
27
28
Slovenia
Chile
Taiwan
21.61
21.44
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
120
22.85
22.68
22.68
22.60
22.60
22.52
21.36
29
Denmark
21.19
30
31
USA
Qatar
21.03
20.78
32
33
34
Czech
Republic
Mexico
Croatia
20.20
19.62
19.37
35
UAE
19.29
36
37
Poland
Argentina
Slovak
Republic
Estonia
Hungary
Venezuela
Malaysia
18.96
18.79
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
18.38
17.88
17.55
17.55
17.47
17.30
17.22
17.22
17.22
16.97
16.89
49
50
51
Thailand
Peru
Romania
Turkey
Colombia
Brazil
China
Mainland
Bulgaria
Latvia
52
Jordan
16.64
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
Lithuania
Indonesia
Russia
Philippines
Ukraine
Kazakhstan
India
15.81
13.58
13.00
12.91
60
South Africa
0.00
16.80
16.72
16.72
12.75
11.59
10.27
Table A22: Health Infrastructure - Health
Health
Ranking
infrastructure
Score
1
2
3
4
Belgium
Switzerland
Denmark
France
121
50.00
48.93
47.93
46.83
5
6
Singapore
Taiwan
46.83
46.07
7
8
Austria
Netherlands
45.42
45.35
9
10
Luxembourg
Germany
45.20
45.17
11
12
13
14
Spain
Sweden
Japan
Czech Republic
15
16
17
Malaysia
Finland
Canada
44.37
43.26
42.01
41.54
41.12
40.74
39.60
18
Norway
39.45
19
20
21
Australia
Korea
Iceland
39.18
39.14
38.97
22
23
UAE
Hong Kong
37.92
37.86
24
25
26
Ukraine
United Kingdom
Israel
36.12
36.11
35.75
27
Portugal
35.59
28
29
New Zealand
Qatar
34.53
33.70
30
USA
33.57
31
Thailand
32.98
32
Italy
32.35
33
34
35
36
Turkey
Estonia
Slovenia
Jordan
37
38
Croatia
Greece
30.03
28.94
28.45
27.47
25.95
22.72
39
40
41
Philippines
Latvia
Indonesia
42
Ireland
22.35
21.86
21.73
21.73
43
44
45
Mexico
Poland
Lithuania
21.62
20.70
20.57
122
46
47
48
Chile
Kazakhstan
Slovak Republic
18.74
18.02
17.16
49
India
16.02
50
Hungary
15.95
51
52
Argentina
China Mainland
15.70
15.54
53
Russia
9.12
54
55
56
Colombia
Brazil
South Africa
9.00
7.05
6.09
57
58
Peru
Bulgaria
5.84
2.44
59
Venezuela
60
Romania
1.80
0.00
Table A23: Mortality Rate - Health
Mortality
Ranking
rate
Score
1
Hong Kong
25.00
2
Iceland
3
4
5
6
Singapore
Slovenia
Sweden
Finland
7
8
Norway
Luxembourg
24.71
24.66
24.58
24.58
24.54
24.45
24.41
9
10
Japan
Portugal
24.33
24.33
11
12
13
24.20
24.20
24.20
14
15
Denmark
Estonia
Italy
Czech
Republic
Germany
16
17
Ireland
Netherlands
18
19
France
Austria
24.08
24.08
24.03
23.99
20
21
Spain
Belgium
23.99
23.95
123
24.12
24.08
Israel
Greece
Switzerland
Australia
23.95
23.91
23.91
23.87
26
Korea
23.74
27
28
23.66
23.61
29
30
31
Taiwan
Croatia
United
Kingdom
Canada
Lithuania
32
Poland
23.32
33
New Zealand
23.28
34
Hungary
23.11
35
Malaysia
23.03
36
37
38
UAE
USA
Qatar
22.98
22.61
22.52
22
23
24
25
23.61
23.40
23.36
Slovak
39
Republic
22.52
40
41
Latvia
Chile
22.40
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Ukraine
Russia
Bulgaria
Thailand
Romania
Argentina
China
Mainland
Venezuela
50
51
52
53
Turkey
Brazil
Mexico
Colombia
54
58
59
Peru
Jordan
Philippines
Kazakhstan
Indonesia
South Africa
60
India
55
56
57
124
22.10
21.51
20.76
20.67
20.59
20.50
19.83
19.62
19.45
19.37
19.20
19.16
18.32
18.15
17.06
15.08
13.87
12.40
6.13
0.00
Table A24: Quality of the Educational System - Education
Ranking
Quality of the educational system
Score
1
2
Finland
Switzerland
3
Canada
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Singapore
Denmark
Belgium
Germany
Netherlands
Ireland
Poland
Australia
Malaysia
New Zealand
Qatar
UAE
Sweden
Norway
Iceland
France
Taiwan
USA
Hong Kong
United Kingdom
Austria
Luxembourg
Israel
Korea
Lithuania
Philippines
Estonia
40.00
38.81
36.10
36.03
35.38
34.57
32.40
31.94
31.83
31.53
31.37
30.47
31
32
33
34
Jordan
Czech Republic
Portugal
Indonesia
35
36
37
38
Japan
Italy
India
Latvia
125
29.85
29.81
29.81
28.61
28.10
27.87
27.44
26.49
25.88
25.80
25.28
25.13
25.02
24.60
23.16
22.89
22.17
20.36
20.28
19.96
19.92
19.82
18.88
18.25
18.25
16.92
39
40
41
Greece
Spain
Turkey
16.85
16.39
16.23
42
Slovenia
43
44
45
46
Thailand
Kazakhstan
47
48
Chile
China Mainland
16.06
15.51
14.95
14.62
13.80
12.94
12.24
49
50
51
52
53
54
Ukraine
Russia
Croatia
Mexico
Slovak Republic
Argentina
55
56
57
Romania
Brazil
Peru
7.97
6.58
4.50
4.04
58
59
Bulgaria
Venezuela
3.00
1.64
60
South Africa
0.00
Colombia
Hungary
11.79
11.44
10.88
10.33
10.00
Table A25: University Education - Education
Ranking
1
2
3
4
University
Education
Switzerland
Singapore
Canada
Finland
Score
30.00
29.64
29.20
28.09
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Denmark
Israel
Belgium
Germany
Netherlands
USA
Sweden
27.89
12
13
14
15
Ireland
Qatar
Australia
Malaysia
Iceland
24.19
24.08
23.89
23.62
22.62
16
126
27.39
27.34
26.09
26.03
24.95
24.92
17
18
19
20
Austria
UAE
United Kingdom
21
22
23
24
25
Norway
New Zealand
France
Luxembourg
Portugal
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Philippines
Taiwan
Lithuania
Indonesia
Estonia
Czech Republic
Jordan
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Chile
Turkey
India
Greece
Poland
Thailand
Latvia
Mexico
Korea
Italy
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Colombia
Spain
South Africa
Russia
Slovenia
Hungary
Kazakhstan
Hong Kong
22.35
22.34
22.34
21.25
20.55
20.01
19.34
18.64
18.14
16.97
16.84
16.37
16.09
15.98
15.75
15.19
15.12
14.53
14.40
12.73
12.73
12.62
12.54
12.45
12.44
12.22
12.14
10.16
9.98
9.93
9.45
50
Ukraine
51
52
53
54
Argentina
Japan
China Mainland
Venezuela
55
56
57
Peru
Croatia
9.35
9.28
9.06
8.47
8.12
7.69
7.29
5.21
4.95
Brazil
4.57
127
58
Romania
59
60
Slovak Republic
Bulgaria
I
2.80
I
2.67
0.00
Table A26: Pupil-Teacher ratio - Education
Ranking
Pupil-teacher
ratio
Score
1
2
Portugal
Greece
20.00
19.72
3
4
5
6
Croatia
Venezuela
Lithuania
Luxembourg
19.52
19.33
19.02
18.83
7
8
Kazakhstan
Belgium
9
10
Estonia
Austria
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Norway
Sweden
Qatar
Iceland
Latvia
Spain
Argentina
Slovenia
Russia
Switzerland
Denmark
Hungary
Czech Republic
Israel
18.65
18.61
18.58
18.46
18.39
18.38
18.22
17.73
17.61
17.58
25
26
27
28
29
30
Japan
Ukraine
Australia
Italy
Slovak Republic
Bulgaria
Jordan
Poland
UAE
Romania
Indonesia
31
32
33
34
35
128
17.51
17.44
17.22
17.14
17.07
17.00
16.92
16.92
16.79
16.71
16.71
16.71
16.68
16.65
16.49
16.49
16.39
16.36
16.27
36
37
France
Germany
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
Malaysia
Finland
Netherlands
USA
Ireland
New Zealand
Hong Kong
China Mainland
Peru
United Kingdom
Singapore
Taiwan
Brazil
Canada
Korea
Mexico
Thailand
Turkey
South Africa
India
58
59
Chile
Colombia
6.60
5.61
60
Philippines
0.00
16.21
16.04
15.69
15.46
15.44
15.42
14.95
14.87
14.73
14.17
13.89
13.78
13.70
13.41
13.29
12.97
12.61
12.38
10.92
9.88
7.63
6.97
Table A27: Illiteracy - Education
Ranking
Illiteracy
1
Australia
2
Austria
3
Belgium
4
Canada
Czech
5
Republic
6
Denmark
7
Estonia
8
Finland
9
France
10
Germany
11
Hungary
12
13
Iceland
Ireland
129
Score
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Japan
28
29
30
31
32
Kazakhstan
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Russia
Slovak
Republic
Slovenia
Sweden
Switzerland
Ukraine
United
Kingdom
USA
Italy
Croatia
Chile
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Bulgaria
Korea
Taiwan
Argentina
Spain
Romania
Greece
Israel
Qatar
Singapore
Venezuela
Philippines
45
Portugal
China
Mainland
Thailand
Colombia
Malaysia
Mexico
Indonesia
Jordan
Brazil
23
24
25
26
27
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
130
S10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
9.97
9.93
9.81
9.73
9.71
9.58
9.50
9.47
9.44
9.24
9.20
8.86
8.70
8.53
8.49
8.39
8.01
7.94
7.64
7.53
7.51
7.30
7.29
6.76
54
55
Turkey
56
Peru
57
South Africa
6.05
5.80
58
India
0.00
UAE
6.56
6.24
Table A28: Unemployment - Employ
Ranking Unemployment Score
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Qatar
Thailand
Singapore
Malaysia
Korea
Norway
Hong Kong
Peru
India
China Mainland
Switzerland
Taiwan
Austria
Japan
UAE
Mexico
Luxembourg
Australia
Netherlands
Kazakhstan
Brazil
Germany
Russia
Iceland
Indonesia
Chile
Romania
Argentina
Israel
New Zealand
29.66
29.57
29.57
29.39
28.64
28.43
28.24
28.17
28.14
27.86
27.86
27.86
27.43
26.94
26.43
26.00
25.86
25.86
25.86
Czech Republic
Philippines
25.75
25.71
Canada
25.37
131
35.00
34.77
32.86
31.43
31.14
31.14
31.00
30.85
30.00
29.86
29.74
ent
34
Belgium
25.29
35
36
Ukraine
Finland
37
38
Denmark
Venezuela
39
40
41
42
United Kingdom
Sweden
USA
Slovenia
25.00
24.73
24.71
24.57
24.44
24.33
24.19
22.86
43
44
45
46
Turkey
Poland
Estonia
France
22.57
21.27
21.14
21.07
47
48
Colombia
Italy
20.90
20.43
49
50
51
52
Hungary
Jordan
Bulgaria
Lithuania
Slovak
Republic
Ireland
Latvia
Portugal
20.10
18.29
18.14
16.86
57
58
Croatia
15.86
14.57
14.00
13.71
13.33
Greece
1.00
59
South Africa
0.14
60
Spain
0.00
53
54
55
56
Table A29: Youth Unemployment - Employment
Ranking
1
2
Youth
Unemployment
Qatar
Thailand
Score
35.00
34.56
3
4
Kazakhstan
Switzerland
33.52
32.09
5
6
Japan
Germany
7
8
Norway
Austria
30.78
30.76
30.46
30.40
9
Singapore
30.27
132
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
30.21
30.01
29.89
29.80
29.36
29.10
28.44
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Korea
Hong Kong
Netherlands
Mexico
Malaysia
Iceland
Australia
India
Israel
UAE
Taiwan
Russia
Brazil
Peru
Denmark
Canada
Venezuela
USA
Philippines
Turkey
28.25
28.19
28.19
27.82
27.47
27.29
30
31
32
Luxembourg
Ukraine
New Zealand
23.95
23.95
23.72
33
34
35
36
Belgium
Finland
Chile
Czech Republic
23.63
23.63
23.47
23.37
37
38
39
40
41
42
Colombia
Indonesia
Estonia
Slovenia
United Kingdom
Romania
23.30
23.30
23.01
22.70
22.41
22.00
43
44
45
46
Sweden
France
Lithuania
Poland
20.70
20.58
18.88
18.81
47
48
49
Jordan
Bulgaria
Hungary
Latvia
18.68
17.77
17.77
17.58
50
133
26.95
26.85
26.77
26.30
25.53
25.52
24.65
51
52
Ireland
Slovak Republic
53
54
55
56
57
Portugal
Italy
Croatia
South Africa
Spain
58
Greece
16.14
13.94
13.41
13.12
9.21
2.91
1.43
0.00
Table A30: Labour Relations - Employment
Labour
Ranking
Relations
1
Japan
2
Switzerland
3
Sweden
4
Norway
5
Austria
6
Denmark
7
Singapore
8
Germany
9
UAE
10
Ireland
11
Netherlands
12
Malaysia
13
Hong Kong
14
Taiwan
15
Kazakhstan
16
Iceland
17
New Zealand
18
Thailand
19
United Kingdom
20
Philippines
21
Estonia
22
Qatar
23
Luxembourg
Score
15.00
14.90
14.81
14.16
13.85
13.76
13.75
13.48
13.19
12.90
12.86
12.63
12.54
24
25
26
27
USA
Canada
Israel
Mexico
12.45
12.25
12.14
11.93
11.84
11.82
11.55
11.55
11.20
11.06
10.87
10.73
10.52
10.29
28
29
Finland
Czech Republic
10.27
10.21
134
30
31
32
33
Turkey
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Chile
Ukraine
Latvia
Hungary
India
Lithuania
Jordan
China Mainland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Colombia
Peru
43
44
Belgium
Indonesia
45
46
Brazil
Russia
47
48
Australia
Slovenia
10.21
10.12
9.87
9.73
9.69
9.67
9.50
9.41
9.33
9.28
9.13
8.93
8.21
7.89
7.79
7.41
7.39
7.38
7.31
6.96
49
Romania
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Spain
Greece
Poland
France
Italy
Bulgaria
Korea
57
Croatia
6.10
5.43
5.29
5.13
5.09
4.93
4.65
3.91
58
59
Argentina
South Africa
3.28
0.08
60
Venezuela
0.00
Table A31: Corporate Values - Employment
Ranking
Corporate
Values
1
2
Norway
Sweden
Score
15.00
14.15
3
4
5
6
Denmark
Malaysia
UAE
Canada
13.29
12.82
12.49
12.40
135
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Switzerland
Iceland
Taiwan
Netherlands
Germany
Ireland
Japan
Philippines
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Luxembourg
Finland
Thailand
Austria
Qatar
Singapore
USA
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Australia
Indonesia
Brazil
Mexico
India
Lithuania
Colombia
New Zealand
Hong Kong
Belgium
Venezuela
Israel
United Kingdom
Korea
Kazakhstan
Turkey
South Africa
Chile
Peru
41
42
43
44
China Mainland
Greece
France
Estonia
45
46
Latvia
Hungary
47
Italy
136
11.59
11.38
10.94
10.88
10.79
10.69
10.66
10.45
10.38
10.33
10.29
10.16
10.08
10.08
9.99
9.94
9.86
9.76
9.56
9.47
9.43
9.41
9.17
8.90
8.58
8.36
7.98
7.95
7.90
7.90
7.48
7.42
6.86
6.62
6.60
6.47
6.46
6.45
6.29
6.10
5.97
48
52
53
54
55
56
57
Ukraine
Czech Republic
Jordan
Slovak Republic
Croatia
Portugal
Romania
Argentina
Spain
Slovenia
5.66
5.66
5.60
4.86
4.55
4.29
4.15
3.79
3.53
58
59
Russia
Bulgaria
2.66
0.64
60
Poland
0.00
49
50
51
5.74
Table A32: Gini Index - Economic Equality and Purchasing Power
Ranking
Gini
Score
1
2
Denmark
Japan
3
4
6
7
8
Sweden
Norway
Czech
Republic
Slovak
Republic
Ukraine
Finland
25.00
25.00
25.00
24.41
9
10
Germany
Kazakhstan
11
12
13
14
15
16
Austria
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Romania
Slovenia
Hungary
17
18
Korea
19
20
Belgium
France
21
22
23
Croatia
Switzerland
Indonesia
5
Canada
137
24.25
24.25
23.96
23.60
22.53
22.01
21.86
20.67
20.52
20.41
20.41
20.37
19.77
19.36
19.03
19.03
18.54
18.52
18.28
24
25
26
Poland
Ireland
Greece
27
Spain
Australia
Estonia
New Zealand
United
Kingdom
Italy
Latvia
India
Lithuania
Jordan
Portugal
Turkey
Israel
USA
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Qatar
Russia
China
Mainland
Philippines
Singapore
Hong Kong
Venezuela
Argentina
Bulgaria
18.21
18.08
18.06
17.76
17.39
16.79
16.79
16.79
16.76
16.34
16.19
15.59
15.50
14.55
14.55
14.40
13.20
12.98
12.11
11.94
11.56
11.56
11.26
11.19
10.44
9.83
9.17
7.86
50
51
52
53
54
Malaysia
Peru
55
56
Brazil
South Africa
7.61
4.77
3.67
3.43
0.54
57
Colombia
0.00
Mexico
Chile
Thailand
Table A33: GDP Per Capita - Economic Equality and Purchasing Power
Ranking GDP per capita
1
2
Qatar
Luxembourg
138
Score
50.00
45.23
3
4
5
Singapore
Switzerland
30.74
30.20
25.48
6
7
8
Hong Kong
USA
UAE
25.18
24.15
23.00
9
Australia
10
11
12
13
14
Austria
Netherlands
Sweden
Ireland
Canada
15
16
17
Denmark
Germany
Belgium
18
Taiwan
19
20
21
32
33
34
35
36
37
Finland
Iceland
France
United
Kingdom
Japan
Italy
New Zealand
Spain
Korea
Israel
Slovenia
Czech
Republic
Portugal
Slovak
Republic
Greece
Estonia
Russia
Lithuania
Poland
20.95
20.70
20.62
20.33
20.05
19.92
19.81
19.27
18.56
17.97
17.94
17.70
17.54
38
39
40
Hungary
Latvia
Croatia
41
Chile
9.60
9.40
8.78
8.53
8.11
42
Turkey
7.18
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Norway
139
17.06
16.43
15.15
14.86
14.55
14.23
13.51
12.07
11.90
11.13
11.13
10.96
10.15
10.11
10.10
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Argentina
7.12
7.03
55
56
Mexico
Malaysia
Romania
Bulgaria
Venezuela
Kazakhstan
Brazil
South Africa
Peru
Colombia
Thailand
China
Mainland
Ukraine
57
Jordan
1.11
58
59
Indonesia
Philippines
0.52
0.28
60
India
0.00
6.91
6.57
6.10
5.25
5.17
4.33
3.83
3.63
3.58
3.10
2.76
1.82
Table A34: Income Distribution - Economic Equality and Purchasing Power
Ranking Income distribution-lowest 10
1
Japan
2
3
4
Slovak Republic
Czech Republic
Ukraine
5
6
7
8
Finland
Kazakhstan
Norway
Iceland
9
10
India
Sweden
11
12
13
14
Hungary
Luxembourg
Belgium
Romania
15
16
17
18
19
Slovenia
Jordan
Austria
Croatia
Bulgaria
Score
25.00
22.28
22.03
21.29
20.17
20.05
19.18
18.19
17.82
17.45
17.20
16.96
16.46
16.21
16.21
16.09
15.97
15.90
15.59
140
15.53
15.47
15.22
13.30
13.18
13.12
12.56
12.31
12.31
12.07
11.63
11.57
11.57
11.51
11.32
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Indonesia
Poland
Germany
Ireland
Korea
Switzerland
Thailand
France
Russia
29
30
31
Estonia
Latvia
Canada
32
Lithuania
33
34
35
36
Denmark
Philippines
Spain
Greece
37
38
Netherlands
China Mainland
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Italy
9.53
New Zealand
Israel
United Kingdom
9.03
8.54
8.04
Australia
Portugal
Hong Kong
Turkey
7.67
7.61
7.49
7.43
47
48
USA
Singapore
6.93
6.75
49
50
51
52
Venezuela
Mexico
Malaysia
Chile
6.75
6.50
6.31
4.77
53
Peru
3.59
54
55
56
Qatar
Argentina
South Africa
3.34
2.97
1.92
57
Brazil
0.06
58
Colombia
0.00
141
11.20
11.08
10.71
9.96
Table A35: Basic Infrastructure - Competitiveness
Ranking
1
2
3
4
Basic
Infrastructure
Iceland
Canada
Netherlands
France
Score
25.00
20.76
20.58
20.13
20.02
19.59
19.51
19.07
19.02
18.51
18.28
18.13
17.75
17.46
17.32
16.96
16.72
16.63
16.42
9
Denmark
USA
Norway
China Mainland
Switzerland
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Sweden
Qatar
Malaysia
UAE
Finland
Czech Republic
Singapore
Germany
Belgium
Taiwan
20
21
Austria
United Kingdom
22
23
24
25
Australia
Korea
Spain
Thailand
26
27
28
29
30
New Zealand
Japan
Luxembourg
Ireland
Hong Kong
14.13
14.06
13.84
13.71
13.57
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Lithuania
Hungary
Estonia
Slovak Republic
Latvia
Poland
Greece
12.59
12.44
12.35
12.25
12.03
11.82
11.82
38
Portugal
11.80
5
6
7
8
142
16.24
16.23
16.06
15.75
14.74
14.35
11.43
11.21
11.14
10.62
39
40
41
Slovenia
Kazakhstan
Indonesia
42
Turkey
43
44
45
46
Romania
Russia
Mexico
Chile
10.17
10.05
47
48
Colombia
Israel
9.13
9.12
49
50
51
52
Croatia
Bulgaria
India
Ukraine
8.81
7.86
7.46
6.93
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
South Africa
Philippines
Brazil
Italy
6.16
6.07
5.87
5.43
Peru
Argentina
Venezuela
4.89
4.55
2.22
60
Jordan
0.00
9.84
9.70
Table A36: Infrastructure - Competitiveness
Ranking
1
Infrastructure
USA
Score
25.00
23.34
22.84
2
3
4
5
6
Sweden
Switzerland
Denmark
Finland
Canada
7
8
Germany
France
20.73
20.20
9
10
11
12
Netherlands
Japan
Norway
Singapore
20.13
20.07
20.03
19.96
13
14
Israel
Iceland
United
Kingdom
Taiwan
19.81
19.03
15
16
143
22.45
21.05
21.04
18.66
18.21
Austria
Belgium
Korea
18.06
17.97
17.66
17.48
16.99
16.67
16.42
15.05
13.60
29
30
31
32
Australia
Hong Kong
Ireland
Luxembourg
New Zealand
Malaysia
China
Mainland
Spain
Portugal
Czech
Republic
Italy
Lithuania
Estonia
33
34
35
36
Slovenia
UAE
Greece
Poland
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Latvia
Hungary
Russia
Qatar
Slovak
Republic
Croatia
Turkey
Kazakhstan
Ukraine
Chile
Romania
Thailand
Mexico
11.20
10.93
10.87
10.85
10.30
10.14
50
51
52
Brazil
Bulgaria
Jordan
4.94
4.55
4.16
53
54
55
Argentina
India
Colombia
Indonesia
3.79
3.30
2.95
2.74
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
56
144
13.55
13.34
13.30
13.13
12.35
12.15
11.48
9.68
8.52
8.49
7.79
7.09
6.57
6.47
6.05
5.83
5.75
5.07
57
58
59
South Africa
Venezuela
2.08
1.70
0.89
60
Peru
0.00
Philippines
Table A37: Large Corporations - Competitiveness
Large
Ranking
Corporations
1
Sweden
2
3
Switzerland
Ireland
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Hong Kong
Denmark
USA
Germany
UAE
Philippines
Singapore
France
Mexico
Netherlands
Malaysia
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Thailand
Slovak Republic
Finland
Hungary
Spain
Norway
Belgium
Chile
Turkey
Austria
Taiwan
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Portugal
Qatar
Canada
Israel
Ukraine
Czech Republic
Peru
Lithuania
United Kingdom
34
145
Score
25.00
23.60
23.50
23.01
22.95
21.49
21.35
21.03
20.83
20.51
20.38
19.88
19.14
18.97
18.92
18.84
18.63
17.69
17.09
17.04
16.79
16.70
16.53
16.30
16.17
15.90
15.59
15.53
15.18
14.56
14.48
14.23
14.15
13.79
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
India
Colombia
Luxembourg
Brazil
Korea
New Zealand
Australia
Kazakhstan
Indonesia
Latvia
Estonia
Greece
Romania
Argentina
Italy
13.20
13.17
12.88
11.74
10.98
9.36
9.27
9.23
8.89
8.75
8.27
7.98
7.32
7.13
7.08
6.72
5.77
5.26
3.93
2.40
1.70
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
Jordan
Japan
South Africa
Croatia
Iceland
Russia
Venezuela
Bulgaria
China Mainland
Poland
1.45
0.76
0.62
0.62
60
Slovenia
0.00
Table A38: Small and medium size enterprises - Competi iveness
Small and medium size enterprises
Germany
Score
25.00
2
Switzerland
3
4
5
6
7
8
Austria
Hong Kong
22.47
20.79
20.52
9
Taiwan
10
11
12
Poland
Belgium
Finland
Ranking
1
20.45
20.28
18.56
18.55
18.14
18.02
17.84
17.59
USA
Sweden
Netherlands
Denmark
146
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Norway
22
23
24
25
26
27
United Kingdom
Singapore
New Zealand
17.23
17.19
16.73
16.45
16.20
16.16
15.37
14.82
14.58
14.39
14.17
14.01
Italy
Australia
Slovak Republic
13.90
13.27
12.82
28
29
Lithuania
Slovenia
30
31
32
Iceland
Qatar
Turkey
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Estonia
Latvia
France
Philippines
Indonesia
Chile
Japan
Mexico
Romania
Spain
South Africa
Peru
India
Croatia
12.58
11.93
11.29
11.20
10.98
10.98
10.93
10.66
10.47
9.99
9.94
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Greece
Ukraine
Kazakhstan
Israel
UAE
Luxembourg
Malaysia
Ireland
Canada
Czech Republic
China Mainland
9.56
9.43
9.24
8.61
8.42
8.34
8.26
7.62
7.61
7.53
7.50
6.77
6.54
6.24
5.91
Portugal
Jordan
Thailand
Brazil
147
54
5.07
55
56
Colombia
Korea
Hungary
4.94
4.59
57
58
Argentina
Russia
3.89
3.54
59
Bulgaria
2.78
60
Venezuela
0.00
Table A39: Bribing and Corruption- Ethical Concerns and Governance
Ranking
Bribing and
corruption
1
2
Denmark
Finland
3
4
5
6
New Zealand
Singapore
Switzerland
Iceland
7
8
9
10
Sweden
Ireland
Netherlands
UAE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
United Kingdom
Norway
Germany
Japan
Australia
Qatar
Canada
Luxembourg
Chile
Hong Kong
USA
Belgium
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
France
Estonia
Israel
Austria
Taiwan
Korea
Turkey
30
31
Malaysia
Poland
148
Score
30.00
27.17
26.97
26.11
25.42
24.81
24.59
24.32
23.99
23.59
23.39
23.35
22.90
22.61
22.55
22.36
22.25
21.88
21.77
21.60
20.85
20.83
19.92
18.88
16.41
16.31
15.50
14.30
13.74
13.52
12.64
12.31
32
Portugal
33
34
35
36
Jordan
Lithuania
Latvia
Indonesia
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Spain
Greece
Croatia
Italy
Philippines
Peru
Kazakhstan
Mexico
Romania
Czech Republic
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
Slovenia
Colombia
60
9.75
9.32
7.48
6.69
6.44
6.15
5.68
5.23
5.16
5.13
5.07
4.87
4.87
4.52
Thailand
Hungary
Brazil
China Mainland
4.39
4.32
4.10
4.06
3.69
3.64
Argentina
India
South Africa
Venezuela
Russia
Slovak Republic
3.61
3.08
2.46
1.49
1.46
1.32
Bulgaria
0.04
Ukraine
0.00
Table A40: Government Effectiveness - Ethical Concerns and Governance
Ranking Government Effectiveness
Singapore
1
Score
30.00
2
3
4
UAE
Qatar
Switzerland
29.69
27.43
26.57
5
6
7
8
Sweden
Denmark
Turkey
Chile
9
Malaysia
26.51
24.60
24.43
23.97
23.16
149
10
11
12
13
14
Finland
Germany
Estonia
Norway
Luxembourg
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Canada
Netherlands
New Zealand
Hong Kong
Poland
Austria
Ireland
Kazakhstan
China Mainland
United Kingdom
USA
Mexico
Indonesia
Korea
Belgium
Japan
Hungary
Portugal
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Taiwan
Thailand
Israel
France
Philippines
Peru
Lithuania
Romania
Jordan
Colombia
Australia
Latvia
Brazil
Czech Republic
Spain
Slovak Republic
Iceland
Bulgaria
150
23.13
22.98
21.78
20.74
20.70
20.28
19.71
18.44
18.44
18.12
17.50
17.09
16.47
15.80
15.53
15.47
15.26
15.12
15.04
14.80
14.39
14.08
13.91
13.74
13.21
12.81
12.57
12.15
11.38
11.35
10.13
9.95
9.82
9.76
9.74
8.40
8.26
8.14
7.92
7.40
5.92
51
52
India
Russia
4.91
4.89
53
Croatia
4.70
54
55
56
Ukraine
Italy
Greece
4.69
3.56
3.26
57
58
Argentina
South Africa
2.91
2.03
59
Slovenia
60
Venezuela
1.51
0.00
Table A41: Transparency of Government Policymaking - Ethical Concerns and
Governance
Ranking
1
Transparency of government policymaking
Norway
Score
30.00
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Sweden
Finland
Singapore
Switzerland
UAE
Denmark
New Zealand
Qatar
Chile
Ireland
Germany
29.50
28.43
28.15
28.11
27.91
13
14
United Kingdom
Malaysia
15
16
17
18
19
20
Canada
Netherlands
Hong Kong
Luxembourg
USA
Poland
21
22
23
24
Australia
Estonia
Turkey
Philippines
19.81
18.95
18.66
18.36
25
26
27
Japan
Israel
Taiwan
18.15
17.90
17.65
27.68
27.22
26.97
26.67
24.46
23.55
23.34
23.05
22.97
22.75
22.08
21.96
21.70
19.83
151
17.27
16.85
16.85
16.35
16.18
15.45
14.81
14.26
13.37
12.92
12.83
12.67
12.65
12.23
11.18
28
29
Belgium
France
30
31
32
Korea
Indonesia
Kazakhstan
33
34
35
36
Austria
Mexico
Croatia
Lithuania
37
38
Latvia
Jordan
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
South Africa
Peru
Portugal
Iceland
Colombia
Brazil
Romania
India
Thailand
Spain
49
50
51
52
Czech Republic
Greece
China Mainland
Russia
9.83
53
54
55
56
Bulgaria
8.41
Italy
Slovak Republic
Hungary
7.72
7.43
6.22
57
58
Slovenia
Argentina
5.94
1.69
59
Ukraine
1.14
60
Venezuela
0.00
11.08
11.01
10.74
10.31
10.10
10.01
9.67
9.34
9.02
Table A42: Social Responsibility - Ethical Concerns and Governance
Social
Ranking
1
Responsibility
Japan
Score
10.00
2
Norway
9.64
3
4
Denmark
Malaysia
5
Austria
9.61
9.19
8.84
152
6
7
8
Sweden
Canada
UAE
9
10
11
12
13
14
Taiwan
Finland
New Zealand
Thailand
Switzerland
Luxembourg
8.76
8.65
8.31
8.06
7.84
7.66
7.47
7.43
7.21
15
16
17
Germany
Netherlands
Qatar
6.97
6.81
6.78
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Ireland
South Africa
Belgium
Venezuela
Iceland
Singapore
Australia
Philippines
Kazakhstan
27
28
29
30
31
32
Brazil
Indonesia
Turkey
USA
China Mainland
Lithuania
6.76
6.55
6.48
6.40
6.23
6.16
6.15
6.03
5.82
5.69
5.64
5.57
5.53
5.42
5.38
33
34
35
36
37
38
Colombia
Hong Kong
Mexico
France
United Kingdom
Chile
Czech Republic
5.38
5.28
5.03
4.91
4.76
4.08
3.81
Greece
India
Israel
Estonia
Italy
Peru
Korea
3.78
3.78
3.64
3.61
3.48
3.32
3.12
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
153
47
2.78
48
Latvia
Poland
49
50
51
52
Jordan
Ukraine
Argentina
Slovenia
53
54
Slovak Republic
2.77
2.51
2.30
2.16
2.03
2.01
55
56
Hungary
Portugal
Spain
57
58
Croatia
Romania
59
Bulgaria
1.93
1.74
1.68
1.19
0.73
0.51
60
Russia
0.00
Table A43: Innovative Capacity - Potential for Innovation
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Innovative
capacity
Israel
USA
Switzerland
Germany
Denmark
Sweden
Taiwan
Netherlands
Austria
Finland
Ireland
UAE
Malaysia
Japan
Norway
Canada
Singapore
United Kingdom
Korea
Luxembourg
Hong Kong
Belgium
France
Australia
154
Score
40.00
34.49
33.50
32.84
31.88
31.55
28.91
28.82
28.55
27.68
27.61
27.32
27.13
25.70
25.67
25.65
25.56
24.63
24.57
24.55
24.51
24.00
23.79
21.89
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Iceland
Italy
Lithuania
New Zealand
Indonesia
Qatar
Czech Republic
Estonia
Philippines
Thailand
Colombia
Portugal
Latvia
Spain
Kazakhstan
Turkey
Mexico
Greece
South Africa
India
Argentina
Brazil
Slovenia
Chile
Jordan
China Mainland
21.75
21.75
20.93
Ukraine
Peru
Venezuela
Romania
Hungary
Slovak Republic
Croatia
Russia
10.65
9.97
8.22
7.68
6.67
6.31
5.69
20.08
19.29
19.23
16.87
16.46
16.40
15.33
15.05
15.04
15.02
14.98
14.55
14.55
14.06
13.95
13.89
13.56
13.36
13.17
13.15
12.87
12.35
11.28
59
Bulgaria
3.81
1.47
60
Poland
0.00
Table A44: Scientific Research Legislation - Potential for Innovation
Ranking
1
2
Scientific research legislation
Score
Israel
USA
20.00
19.55
155
3
4
18.72
Switzerland
Singapore
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Sweden
Denmark
Ireland
Canada
Finland
Norway
Luxembourg
Malaysia
Netherlands
United Kingdom
18
19
20
21
22
23
UAE
Germany
Belgium
France
Kazakhstan
Iceland
24
25
26
27
28
29
Japan
New Zealand
Hong Kong
Korea
South Africa
Portugal
30
31
Austria
Lithuania
32
33
34
35
Turkey
Estonia
Czech Republic
India
China Mainland
Poland
Thailand
Indonesia
Latvia
Greece
Hungary
Philippines
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Qatar
Australia
Taiwan
156
18.28
18.06
17.12
16.97
16.92
16.35
16.26
16.25
16.00
15.94
15.65
15.39
15.22
14.33
14.03
14.00
13.68
13.33
12.35
12.33
12.16
11.85
11.72
11.62
11.61
11.11
10.78
10.35
9.70
9.68
9.66
9.33
8.74
7.85
7.79
7.58
7.33
6.88
6.80
6.66
44
45
46
Brazil
Chile
Jordan
6.64
47
48
49
50
51
52
Russia
Slovenia
Italy
Spain
Colombia
Mexico
53
54
55
Croatia
Argentina
Slovak Republic
56
57
58
59
Peru
Romania
Ukraine
Venezuela
6.21
6.13
5.61
5.40
5.29
5.10
4.33
4.11
3.51
3.14
1.57
1.54
0.28
60
Bulgaria
0.00
6.30
6.22
Table A45: Researchers and Scientists - Potential for Innovation
Ranking Researchers and Scientists
Switzerland
1
Score
40.00
USA
Israel
Singapore
Netherlands
Germany
Canada
Denmark
United Kingdom
Sweden
Ireland
Qatar
Malaysia
Australia
Luxembourg
Finland
UAE
39.28
35.70
33.23
32.42
31.91
31.44
30.98
30.70
30.43
28.76
28.54
26.83
26.32
26.08
25.85
25.61
Norway
Japan
Belgium
Taiwan
24.89
24.15
23.81
23.61
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
157
23.26
23.14
22.50
21.61
21.09
20.28
19.81
19.68
18.69
18.52
18.42
17.40
22
23
24
France
Austria
Hong Kong
25
26
27
28
29
30
Korea
Iceland
New Zealand
Hungary
Kazakhstan
Lithuania
31
32
33
Portugal
China Mainland
Czech Republic
34
35
36
Indonesia
India
Thailand
37
38
39
40
41
42
Turkey
Estonia
Philippines
South Africa
Chile
Greece
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Latvia
Slovenia
Argentina
Croatia
Jordan
Brazil
Colombia
50
51
52
53
54
55
Russia
Spain
Mexico
Italy
Ukraine
Peru
56
57
58
59
Romania
Bulgaria
Slovak Republic
Poland
4.35
4.18
2.97
2.94
60
Venezuela
0.00
17.38
16.53
15.43
15.18
14.72
13.69
12.87
12.44
12.37
11.21
11.17
11.10
10.61
10.49
10.41
9.50
9.49
9.36
8.55
8.52
7.92
4.44
158